Article about the role of extended high frequency (EHF) checks checks

My pet theory is that “hidden hearing loss” isn’t really a thing and would stop being discussed if we started testing beyond 8k. QuickSIN and other SIN testing would also be less necessary if we just tested EHF

Not necessarily, EHF measures mainly cochlear pathology, assuming no conductive hearing loss. There are another part of the auditory tract which could be impaired. That’s rare, but could be nerve, brainstem part or cortical

From one angle, you can have normal hearing thresholds out to 20 kHz and still have auditory processing issues. (I see the regularly in children with auditory processing issues.)

From another angle, Sharon Kujawa did some lovely work showing that (in mice) noise-exposure causing temporary threshold shifts that returned to normal after 24-hours and showed no loss of inner or outter hair cells (counted histologically) nonetheless showed 40-50% loss of synapses between the inner hair cells and auditory nerve fibres. They measured throughout the mouse’s lifespan and there was no return of those synapses, only further degredation with age.

@Neville said:

From another angle, Sharon Kujawa did some lovely work showing that (in mice) noise-exposure causing temporary threshold shifts that returned to normal after 24-hours and showed no loss of inner or outter hair cells (counted histologically) nonetheless showed 40-50% loss of synapses between the inner hair cells and auditory nerve fibres. They measured throughout the mouse’s lifespan and there was no return of those synapses, only further degradation with age.

Could you explain this further I’m not quite understanding

I’m guessing there was some sort of brain-stem testing going on to verify the results, or they just read them a list of cheeses to determine their WRS……