15Loudness, tinnitus & non-organic hearing loss
Threshold is only the floor of hearing; what happens above it can matter just as much. In a damaged cochlea, loudness grows abnormally fast, so the comfortable window between the faintest audible sound and the merely tolerable shrinks — sometimes to a sliver — and speech can no longer be fitted into it, which is part of why amplification fails. The same suprathreshold domain holds tinnitus and hyperacusis, documented before any implant because the device may change them. And it holds one of audiology's subtler challenges: the loss that the tests cannot quite believe — non-organic hearing loss, where the behavioural audiogram and the objective measures disagree, and the cross-check exists precisely to catch it. This module covers measuring loudness, characterising tinnitus, and unmasking a functional overlay before it leads anyone astray.
TLoudness & the dynamic range
Loudness measures — growth, the uncomfortable loudness level, and the dynamic range between threshold and discomfort — characterise the suprathreshold percept the audiogram misses. Recruitment(abnormally rapid loudness growth) narrows the usable range in cochlear loss, so speech can no longer fit comfortably — the deeper mechanism explored in the When-Hearing-Aids-Aren't-Enough chapter.[2020]
CTinnitus & hyperacusis
Tinnitus and hyperacusis are quantified with pitch and loudness matching, minimum masking level, residual inhibition, and validated handicap questionnaires, and are documented before implantation — because the implant can change tinnitus (often suppressing it), and severe tinnitus can itself become a reason to implant.
CNon-organic hearing loss
Non-organic hearing loss — any loss not explained by organic pathology — spans a continuum from conscious malingering, through an intermediate factitious category, to subconscious conversion, and its incidence among candidates may be rising with medico-legal stakes. Behavioural red flags include test–retest inconsistency, an SRT that disagrees with the pure-tone average, absent shadow curves in a claimed unilateral total loss, and the Stenger principle for feigned one-sided loss.
CThe objective cross-check
Objective measures settle it: OAEs, acoustic reflexes and especially ABR/ASSR establish the true organic threshold, and ABR is recommended on any candidate whose validity is in doubt. Resolving a non-organic overlay is essential before implantation — wrongly implanting such a patient carries medico-legal risk — and psychological referral is part of completing the assessment.
How should this be handled?
What does loudness recruitment do to the dynamic range?
Which finding suggests a non-organic component?