Losses are often described as mild, moderate, severe, etc. I understand the ranges, but is there an agreed upon standard of what frequencies are involved to determine the degree of loss? Perhaps PTA (pure tone average) of 500hz, 1000hz and 2000hz? I always find the generic description of a loss a little confusing when many of us have losses that range from slight to profound.
1 Like
Loss is described in a range such as mild-moderate or moderate-profound etc. Just one would be a flat loss.
The audiogram loss numbers aren’t the only info to describe the loss and that would all include the other test that can be preformed including WRS.
Those “degree of loss” levels are displayed if you hover your mouse over the audiograms that forum users have loaded to their member profile on this site.
I get that. How do you describe my
loss with one, or even two levels of loss?
Now Gary, we can call this a hard loss, or an easy loss. Or a medium loss. Or a semi-medium easy-hard loss. Or the sorta-hard-with-a-touch-of-awkward difficult-challenging loss.
my G-kids used to watch S.B.S.P.
2 Likes
Look at the speech banana. You can discount the 8K loss and 6K to a slightly lesser degree as being at the extremes for clarity. The good section at the start deals mainly with volume rather than speech clarity. I’d guestimate mild to severe and discount the profound and normal. The thing I think important in supporting that are good your WRS.
An audiogram itself isn’t a full picture. It is most important as the key to fitting aids.
At least that’s my takeaway.
I have understood the terminology would be bracketed by your best to worst frequencies. Based on your audiogram, I would call yours normal to profound?
1 Like
I’d say mild to severe because those are the speech areas. You can also talk about slope and starting point for loss. What I don’t get is when people are told they have X% loss. This doesn’t mean much to me. Not sure who tells them that or why or what eg. 50% loss means in dB etc.
I agree the percentage loss is not very meaningful. For those that are interested, here’s how you calculate it (from an audiology text book): 1)Average decibel loss for 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 hz
2) Subtract 25 dB 3) Multiply the answer by 1.5. This gives the percentage loss for each ear. 4) Multiply the answer from the better ear by 5, add in the worse ear and divide by 6. The answer is one’s binaural hearing impairment in percentage form.
I repeat. This is not very meaningful and nobody needs to struggle to get this, but if you’re a geek like me and like to try learn stuff just because, here it is. A quick and dirty calculation for my loss. Left ear =0% Right ear = 14% Binaural = 2% loss.
The best way to describe the hearing loss is to be descriptive. Here’s yours @MDB (assuming no air bone gaps in your audiogram):
In the left ear, normal hearing at 250-500Hz sloping to slight sensorineural hearing loss at 1000-2000Hz, sloping precipitously to profound sensorineural hearing loss at 8000Hz. In the right ear, normal hearing at 250-500Hz sloping to mild sensorineural hearing loss at 2000Hz, sloping precipitously to profound sensorineural hearing loss at 8000Hz.
Sorry there really is no better way to do this… Averaging frequencies just doesn’t do the audiogram justice. Also, the SII calculation is something that may be worth looking into for simple comparison’s sake. http://www.sii.to/
1 Like
Thanks - I find it interesting too! 
More about SII
1 Like
I always find Susan Scollie interesting. She’s done a lot of research on frequency lowering.
1 Like
Very old thread.
But now that:
OTC hearing aids within this category can be sold online and in stores directly to consumers who have perceived mild to moderate hearing loss without a medical exam or a fitting by a licensed provider.
what does mild to moderate hearing loss mean to those consumers?
I’m guessing most people who have never had hearing aids think their loss is mild to moderate.
3 Likes
I find it difficult enough explaining mild severe etc hearing loss to a person with normal hearing. Speech comprehension can really throw them for a loop. Plus they usually don’t care. It’s probably best to keep it simple. I even find hearing impaired people telling me they have a 60 percent loss. I have no idea what that means.
2 Likes
It is not enough to categorize hearing loss like that. It fails to accommodate the speech recognition. I have a very unusual hearing loss configuration. I have almost no speech recognition in the right ear before implantation but i’m hitting the performance ceiling with my Ci (80% in quiet).
My hearing aid side is still hitting the performance ceiling. They classify my hearing loss as asymmetric.
For those who are wondering about which side i prefer in all scenario like listening to music or listening to speech. I would prefer the CI side because HA side is like listening through a wall …
In a very unusual case like me, it is definitely not enough to classify me as clinically deaf and there is a lot of factors that define hearing loss.
1 Like
Agree that the classifications are basically useless. Audiogram, WRS and SINT start to give you a feel for somebody’s loss.
1 Like