Hearing loss correlates weakly with precedence-effect echo thresholds.

Evidence

Roberts, Besing, and Koehnke (2002) measured echo thresholds for click stimuli in listeners with normal hearing and with hearing loss. The echo threshold was defined as the just noticeable delay that determined whether the listeners heard one (the echo stimulus was fused with the leading stimulus) or two clicks. Roberts et al. found large variability across listeners, even when stimuli were presented at the same sensation level for the two groups. Many listeners with hearing loss had higher echo thresholds than those with normal hearing, but not all. As we have seen repeatedly in this text, no correlation was observed between audiometric threshold and echo threshold. Other studies, however, have not found a difference in the precedence effect for listeners with hearing loss (e.g., Roberts & Lister, 2004). — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 1590

Categorization

• XREF: The recurring ‘no correlation with audiometric threshold’ pattern echoes the reader’s interest in why standard audiograms fail to capture real perceptual deficits.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: why would hearing-impaired listeners differ so widely in echo thresholds even at matched sensation levels, and what predicts who is affected?