Reasonable requirements for any test of nonorganic hearing impairment are that the procedure should result in both identification of a nonorganic problem and an accurate determination of true organic thresholds. In our clinical experience, no hearing test meets the determination of threshold requirement as accurately and as efficiently as electrodermal audiometry (EDR).
The purpose of this presentation is to offer a brief review of our recent clinical experience with EDR audiometry, including representative case histories.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
VentryIM: Conditioned galvanic skin response audiometry, in BradfordLJ, (ed): Physiological Measures of the Audiovestibular System. New York, Academic Press Inc, 1975, chap 7, pp 215–247.
2.
CatlinFI: Guide for the Evaluation of Hearing Handicap, ed 1. Rochester, Minn, American Academy of Otolaryngology, 1979, p 7–15.
3.
KatzJ, (ed): Handbook of Clinical Audiology, ed 2. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins Co, 1978, chap 26, pp 304–310.
4.
GringsWW: Recording of electrodermal phenomena, in ThompsonRFPattersonMM, (eds): Bioelectric Recording Techniques, Part C, Receptor and Effector Processes. New York, Academic Press Inc, 1974, chap 10, pp 273–315.
5.
FowlesDC: Mechanisms of electrodermal activity, in ThompsonRFPattersonMM, (eds): Bioelectric Recording Techniques, Part C, Receptor and Effector Processes. New York, Academic Press Inc, 1974, chap 9, pp 231–271.
6.
SwetsJA: Is there a sensory threshold?Science134: 168–177, 1961.
7.
DavisH: Principles of electric response audiometry. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol85 (suppl 28): 20–28, 82–85, 1976.
8.
DavisH: Slow cortical responses evoked by acoustic stimuli, in The young deaf child: Identification and management. Acta Otolaryngol206 (suppl 206): 128–134, 1965.
