The audiogram does not predict pitch perception deficits in hearing loss

Evidence

However, these studies also document a wide range of performance abilities when it comes to frequency discrimination. FDLs can be nearly normal in some listeners, but severely elevated in others. Notably, the audiogram does not correlate with the alterations in pitch perception experienced by these listeners. Further, when frequency selectivity is measured (as was done by both Tyler et al., who measured psychophysical tuning curves, and Moore and Peters, who measured auditory filters using the notched-noise method), FDLs were not correlated with frequency selectivity measures. The lack of correlation is particularly problematic for place models of pitch perception, which would predict that poor frequency selectivity should elevate FDLs. The results from this work provide support for the involvement of the temporal code in the pitch perception of pure tones. — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 1330

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• XREF: Connects to the broader finding that audiogram thresholds poorly predict real-world listening difficulties, central to this reader’s hearing-perception focus.

Related

• Audiograms and frequency selectivity fail to predict pitch perception deficits (similarity 0.96)
• Hearing-impaired frequency discrimination does not correlate with audiogram or frequency selectivity (similarity 0.95)
• Perceptual deficits correlate poorly with audiogram thresholds and vary widely (similarity 0.87)
• Sloping or rising hearing loss can create contradictory pitch codes across frequency regions (similarity 0.87)
• The audiogram cannot predict which hearing-impaired listeners have temporal processing deficits (similarity 0.87)
• Hearing loss disrupts pitch via place, temporal, and interaural mechanisms. (similarity 0.86)
• Listeners with hearing loss form a heterogeneous perceptual group, not a single category (similarity 0.86)
• The audiogram fails as a robust indicator of perceptual deafness deficits (similarity 0.86)
• The audiogram measures only sound detection, not other auditory perceptions (similarity 0.85)
• Hearing loss impairs frequency selectivity beyond what stimulus level differences explain. (similarity 0.85)
• Differential metrics can separate cochlear gain loss from temporal coding deficits in hearing loss (similarity 0.85)
• Audiometric hearing loss maps directly onto missed timbral and speech-sound differences (similarity 0.84)
• Brainstem threshold responses cannot predict a patient’s functional hearing ability. (similarity 0.84)
• Hearing impairment disrupts both place and temporal pitch codes (similarity 0.84)
• Sensorineural hearing loss disrupts some temporal abilities but not others, with wide individual variability (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Sloping or rising hearing loss can create contradictory pitch codes across frequency regions #expands (0.82) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 1337