What can the pure‐tone audiogram tell us about a patient's SNR loss?

Although most of us know that you can’t use a patient’s audiogram to predict the amount of trouble he or she will have hearing in noise, many of us still enjoy guessing. In other words, many of us look at an audiogram and estimate the degree of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss that our patient will have,1,2 and then act on our guess as if it were reality, i.e., as if we knew from our guess what difficulty the patient will have hearing in noise. This article looks at hair cell microphotographs taken by Dunn and by Harrison, at histological evidence obtained by Schuknecht on 44 human ears,3 and at direct experimental evidence on the relationship between SNR loss and audiometric loss. All evidence suggests our guessing game won’t (and probably can’t) work very well.

[1]  Mead C. Killion The SIN report: Circuits haven't solved the hearing‐in‐noise problem , 1997 .

[2]  P. Lyregaard Frequency selectivity and speech intelligibility in noise. , 1982, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[3]  Mead C. Killion,et al.  The case of the missing dots: Al and SNR loss , 1998 .

[4]  W. D. Hanks,et al.  HINT list equivalency using older listeners. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[5]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  P Dallos,et al.  Outer hair cells: the inside story. , 1997, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[7]  M C Killion,et al.  Hearing aids: past, present, future: moving toward normal conversations in noise. , 1997, British journal of audiology.

[8]  Susan G. Emmerson,et al.  Pathology of the Ear (2nd ed.) , 1994 .

[9]  G. Lepage [Clinical audiometry]. , 1952, Revue medicale de Liege.