ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The author of this letter to the editor expresses concern about the use of the word "nonorganic" as a source of confusion in terminology. Specifically, this is in response to the December 2017 American Journal of Audiology article, "Estimating Nonorganic Hearing Thresholds Using Binaural Auditory Stimuli" (Norrix, Rubiano, & Mueller, 2017). "Nonorganic" is a source of confusion in terminology, because it can be used in two different ways. One way can mean to say there is no hearing loss. When used in this sense, it is illogical because it is qualifying a hearing loss believed not to exist. The second usage means there is a real disorder of function, but the organs themselves are not damaged and the basis is unknown. In the place of "nonorganic," I have proposed "false hearing loss." "Nonorganic" might carry a negative connotation that "false" might not. Many instances of false hearing loss stem from physical-mental health disturbances. Audiologists must stay alert to signs of psychosocial difficulty and refer for further evaluation accordingly. CONCLUSION: "False" hearing loss is a more appropriate term than "nonorganic" hearing loss.
Subject(s)
Acoustic Stimulation/methods , Audiology/methods , Auditory Threshold/physiology , Hearing Loss, Functional/diagnosis , Terminology as Topic , Evoked Potentials, Auditory/physiology , Female , Humans , Male , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
We describe an adolescent male having sudden onset of sensorineural hearing loss. Evaluation led to the discovery of marked aortoarteritis. This patient exhibited findings of both Takayasu arteritis and Cogan syndrome. This report emphasizes the importance of ensuring a thorough systemic evaluation in individuals having sudden hearing loss.
