Good resource


#1

Was browsing to try to find why the frequencies chosen to test on audiograms were chosen, particularly the 750, 1500 and 3000. (They’re octaves apart, but they’re not any simple fraction of an octave compared to the 1000, 2000, etc.) No luck, but discovered this good source for newbies:

[https://www.hearingloss.org/wp-content/uploads/HLM_JulAug2014_LarryMedwetsky_Audiogram1.pdf?pdf=2014-hlm-ja-lmedwetsky]


#2

If I had to guess, I’d think that the frequencies we test at come out of some slightly arbitrary historical convention based on whomever first decided to do it, what is mechanically convenient, what frequencies ended up being important for speech, and some problems developing calibration norms for higher frequencies. The interoctaves were probably added later in recognition that lower frequencies take up a larger area of the cochlea.


#3

Great resource. I wonder if @abram_bailey_aud has considered having a Recommended Reading section, grouped by newbie, knowledgeable, very experienced user categories with background info links (or maybe such a reading section is already here and I just haven’t stumbled on it - I see the Learning Resources dropdown and the Dr. Cliff section - but these seem to be (relatively) little sound-bites of information rather than the sort of in-depth overview (more than a Scientific American level article) such as the link you provide.

I guess the danger of providing links to other sites is that it takes the reader away from hearingtracker.com


#4

Not enough data points if you ask me. I really think the whole testing procedure is way too cursory. I’m sure it’s been tried but I would think attempting an even-level experience over the frequency range, for several volume levels would be better. Of course that’s sort of what they are trying to do, but using discrete frequencies. I wonder if a slow sweep tweaked for even level at a few levels below uncomfortable would be worth comparing. How many “hairs” do we have in our ears? I’m betting it’s a lot more than 6 or 8.


#5

Tens of thousands. :smiley:

I’m interested in what you are suggesting, but could you clarify?