Talk:Presbycusis

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Presbycusis is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Presbycusis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

References

There are no references in this section.

--88.106.224.198 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be Copied (potential copyvio)

Some parts of this page appear to be taken verbatim from the source referenced at the bottom of the page (http://www.drtbalu.com/presbyacusis.html) 216.36.186.2 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the word "Presbycusis/Presbyacusis"

Does anyone know the origins of the word Presbycusis/Presbyacusis? (Both spellings redirect to this page - maybe the US & UK equivalents of something?) I'd imagine that they're Latin in origin, but my Latin is pretty non-existent... Ged3000 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the link, all of the references in the field use presbycusis (no a), and the only use of presbyacusis I'm aware of is by Seattle audiologist David M. Lipscomb, Ph.D. As he has explained it, the "a" means without (ultimately from Latin a or ab, away from)--without trauma, and he considers presbyacusis a more accurate term than presbycusis. N'Awlins Contrarian 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N'Awlins Contrarian (talk • contribs)

Presbycusis

Presbycusis is defined as hearing loss associated with the degenerative processes of aging. The term comes from the Greek “presbys” meaning “old” and “(a)kousis” meaning “hearing.” A similar use of “presbys” is found in ophthalmology with “presbyopia” or “vision of the elderly.” Dr. Schuknecht found that presbycusis is not a singular physiological entity. Rather, it is a term that represents four distinct degenerative conditions and their corresponding distinct audiometric patterns in their purest manifestation. You Can Find More Of The Info And Some Charts At This Site..

 http://www.ihsinfo.org/IhsV2/Hearing_Professional/2003/060_November-December/080_Presbycusis_A_Look_into_the_Aging_Inner_Ear.cfm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.191.17 (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"high-pitched voice"

I think the characterization of hearing loss in the "higher frequencies" as akin to "high pitched voices" is incorrect. My understanding is that the high frequencies described are those of consonants, as reflected in the inability to distinguish between F and S or P and T. I know this from personal experience, but that's not what Wikipedia needs. I found this supporting information, which may or may not be adequate: http://deafness.about.com/od/audiogramsandaudiology/a/high_frequency_hearing_loss.htm (see first paragraph). This Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_frequency reports that women's voices typically get as high as 255Hz, well below the range considered "high frequency." So I'm just removing the parenthetical expression. Danchall (talk)

Mention the percent of population affected

Mention the percent of population affected. Jidanni (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural aspects section

Is it appropriate to use the slang term 'yobbo' as a descriptor of loitering youths? It seems to me to be something of an unwarranted judgement by someone wtih a chip on their shoulder. Surely the term 'youth' is more neutral? --139.222.127.156 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rehabilitation as a treatment option

I added information about rehabilitation as a treatment option. There are several recent reviews that could be used to enhance the treatment section. --LynnMcCleary (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hearing threshold figures are meaningless

There are a number of threshold values given in plain decibels, which only means "so much louder than (something)". That "something" needs to be given. It might be db(A) SPL, or A-weighted sound pressure level, it might also be unweighted SPL, or it might be some standardized setting on an audiologist's measuring device that leads to a particular SPL. But without any additional information, the numbers are meaningless and the whole section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nettings (talk • contribs) 22:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graph of epidemiological data

It is requested that a template-based chart or charts be included in this article to improve its quality. Useful templates may be found in Category:Chart, diagram and graph formatting and function templates. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

A chart showing say, what is the highest frequency that 90% of the population at a given age can hear would be very useful. -- Beland (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent etiology?

Hi.

I notice the beginning of the article says that at least part of this degeneration is due to inevitable physiological age-related changes and not just environmental factors, then later it is mentioned that:

"Hearing loss is only weakly correlated with age. In preindustrial and non-industrial societies, persons retain their hearing into old age.["

But if this is true, it suggests that it is almost if not entirely environmental in origin, which would seem to make it not any different from a noise-induced hearing loss. This seems contradictory since elsewhere it is suggested that although environmental effects may play a role, there is also a significant amount due to inevitable aging effect. Should it be fixed? Which one is the accepted viewpoint? mike4ty4 (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]