Abstract
Functional hearing loss — also called nonorganic hearing loss or pseudohypacusis — is a hearing deficit with no organic lesion of the auditory system: the person behaves as though they cannot hear, yet the ear and auditory pathway, tested objectively, work. For much of its history the condition was framed as a binary — the patient was faking (malingering), or they were not. The modern account replaces that binary with a spectrum from fully conscious deception to wholly unconscious conversion, and increasingly files the condition among the functional neurological disorders. This article sets out what functional hearing loss is, how audiologists detect it through the discrepancy between behavioural and objective tests, where a case sits on the conscious–unconscious continuum, and why a symptom with a normal cochlea challenges the psychology of perception and self-report.
Keywords: functional hearing loss, nonorganic hearing loss, pseudohypacusis, malingering, functional neurological disorder
A hearing test is one of the few clinical measurements that depends entirely on the patient's cooperation. The audiologist presents a tone and waits for the listener to raise a hand; the threshold recorded is not the quietest sound the ear can detect but the quietest sound the listener chooses to report. That gap — between what the auditory system registers and what the person says they hear — is the whole subject of functional hearing loss. When the two diverge, and no lesion can be found to explain the divergence, the loss is called functional, nonorganic, or pseudohypacusic. The condition is a standing reminder that perception, as measured in the clinic, is a behaviour, and that behaviour can come apart from the physiology beneath it for reasons that range from the deliberate to the entirely unconscious.
- The ear works; the behaviour does not match it. Functional hearing loss is a deficit with no organic cause — the auditory pathway, tested objectively, is intact (Rintelmann et al., 1991; Qiu et al., 1998). - The cardinal sign is a discrepancy. Classically, the obtained speech-reception threshold is markedly better than the claimed pure-tone average — the reverse of the small agreement seen in genuine loss (Chaiklin & Ventry, 1966; Ventry, 1976). - Objective tests settle it. Otoacoustic emissions, acoustic reflexes, and auditory brainstem responses measure the system without the patient's say-so, exposing a functional overlay (Saravanappa et al., 2005; Holenweg & Kompis, 2010). - It is a spectrum, not a verdict. Cases run from conscious malingering through to unconscious conversion, and the clinician's job is description, not accusation (Austen & Lynch, 2004). - It belongs with the functional disorders. Modern neurology frames unexplained functional symptoms, including functional hearing loss in children, as disorders of nervous-system function rather than feigning (Espay et al., 2018; Weisleder & Weisleder, 2022).
What Functional Hearing Loss Is
Functional hearing loss is defined by exclusion and by discrepancy. By exclusion, it is a hearing deficit for which no organic pathology of the outer, middle, or inner ear, or of the auditory nerve and central pathways, can be found (Rintelmann et al., 1991). By discrepancy, the behavioural audiogram the patient produces is inconsistent — with itself on retest, with objective physiological measures, or with the patient's observed ability to converse. The several names the condition carries each emphasise a different facet: nonorganic stresses the absent lesion; pseudohypacusis (literally false hearing loss) stresses the appearance of a deficit that is not physiologically real; functional stresses that the auditory function reported is disturbed even though the auditory structure is sound. MeSH files the condition as Hearing Loss, Functional and classifies it both under Hearing Loss and, tellingly, under Behavioral Symptoms — a dual placement that captures its position between otology and psychology.
The crucial conceptual move is to separate the auditory system from the auditory report. In a standard pure-tone audiogram the listener is the measuring instrument: the threshold is the level at which they begin to respond. This makes the test exquisitely sensitive but also entirely dependent on the listener's criterion for responding — a criterion that, in signal-detection terms, can be shifted deliberately or involuntarily without any change in sensitivity. Functional hearing loss is what happens when that criterion is set so conservatively that the person withholds responses to sounds they can, by any objective measure, detect. It is encountered across the lifespan but is particularly associated with children and adolescents in audiology clinics, where it is a recognised and recurring presentation (Mathai et al., 2021; Pracy et al., 1996).
Detecting Functional Hearing Loss
Because the patient controls the behavioural audiogram, detection rests on finding internal inconsistencies and on bypassing voluntary report altogether. The audiological test battery for pseudohypacusis has three layers (Qiu et al., 1998; Rintelmann et al., 1991).
The first layer is the pure-tone / speech-threshold discrepancy, the historic cardinal sign. In genuine hearing loss the speech-reception threshold (SRT) — the level at which a listener can just repeat two-syllable spondee words — agrees closely with the pure-tone average (PTA) of the thresholds at the speech frequencies, usually within about 6–10 dB. In functional hearing loss the two come apart: the SRT is often substantially better (lower) than the claimed PTA, because the patient, concentrating on individual faint tones, sets a stricter criterion for the tones than for the more salient speech (Chaiklin & Ventry, 1966). Ventry framed this PTA–SRT relationship as the diagnostic hypothesis that flags a nonorganic overlay (Ventry, 1976). Poor test–retest reliability of the pure-tone audiogram itself — thresholds that wander on repeat testing far more than genuine thresholds do — is a related early clue (Chaiklin & Ventry, 1966).
The second layer exploits binaural interaction, chiefly through the Stenger test for a claimed unilateral loss. The Stenger principle holds that when the same tone is presented to both ears, only the louder of the two is consciously perceived. If a listener claiming deafness in one ear is given a faint tone in the good ear and a louder tone in the ear said to be deaf, an organic unilateral loss will still hear and respond to the good-ear tone, whereas a functional listener perceives only the louder bad-ear tone — the very ear they claim is deaf — and, unwilling to admit hearing it, falls silent, revealing the deception. The Stenger remains a staple of the battery, though its logic and limits are actively re-examined (Bell et al., 2025). Experimental studies of people deliberately simulating a loss show characteristic patterns in how they set and hold their false thresholds, informing what the battery looks for (Aplin & Kane, 1985).
The third and decisive layer is objective, physiological measurement that does not depend on the patient responding at all. Otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) — faint sounds the healthy cochlea itself produces — confirm outer-hair-cell function; the acoustic reflex confirms an intact middle-ear reflex arc at levels that may sit below the claimed threshold; and the auditory brainstem response (ABR) traces the electrical volley up the auditory nerve and brainstem, yielding an estimated threshold with no voluntary component. When these objective measures show a working system behind a patient's reported deficit, the functional overlay is established (Saravanappa et al., 2005). A systematic re-examination of the classic diagnostic signs confirmed that this combination — behavioural inconsistency plus normal objective tests — remains the reliable route to the diagnosis (Holenweg & Kompis, 2010).
| Layer | Test | What it reveals | Voluntary response needed? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Behavioural discrepancy | PTA vs SRT; pure-tone test–retest reliability | An SRT markedly better than the claimed PTA, or thresholds that wander on repeat testing | Yes |
| 2. Binaural interaction | Stenger test (claimed unilateral loss) | A one-sided loss that collapses when the louder tone is sent to the ear said to be deaf | Yes (exploits the listener falling silent) |
| 3. Objective physiology | OAE, acoustic reflex, ABR | A working cochlea, middle-ear reflex arc, and neural pathway behind the reported deficit | No |
The Conscious–Unconscious Spectrum
Establishing that a loss is functional answers only the audiological question. The harder question — why the person is producing it — was for decades forced into a crude binary: either the patient was consciously faking for gain (malingering), or they had a genuine, if psychological, deafness. That binary served nobody. It cast the clinician as a lie-detector, it stigmatised patients, and it fit poorly with cases that were plainly neither pure fraud nor pure illness.
The decisive reframing recast functional hearing loss as a spectrum of behaviour defined by the dimension of awareness and intent rather than a two-box classification (Austen & Lynch, 2004). At one pole sits fully conscious malingering: a deliberate fabrication for an external incentive — compensation, avoidance, attention — in which the person knows the ear works. In the middle lie presentations with partial or fluctuating awareness, where a loss that may have begun deliberately, or around a real but trivial deficit, becomes habitual and increasingly involuntary. At the far pole sits conversion (psychogenic) deafness: a genuinely experienced inability to hear, produced unconsciously, with no deliberate deception and often no secondary gain at all. The same objective audiogram can arise from any point on this line; the test battery locates the functional nature of the loss but not the person's position on the continuum, which must be inferred from history, context, and course.
This spectrum view is clinically and ethically consequential. It moves the goal from unmasking a liar to describing a behaviour, which in turn opens a management path — reassurance, removal of incentive, and, where indicated, psychological support — that the accusatory binary foreclosed. In children especially, nonorganic hearing loss is frequently linked to identifiable psychosocial stressors — difficulties at school or home — and often resolves once the stressor is addressed, with thresholds recovering to normal (Schmidt et al., 2013).
Functional Hearing Loss as a Functional Neurological Disorder
The spectrum view connects naturally to a larger shift in clinical neurology. Functional neurological disorders (FND) — once called conversion or hysterical disorders — are conditions in which patients have real, disabling neurological symptoms (weakness, tremor, seizures, blindness) that are inconsistent with recognised disease and incongruent with known anatomy, yet are not feigned. The modern framework treats these as genuine disorders of nervous-system functioning — of how the brain processes, predicts, and attends to its own sensory and motor signals — rather than as malingering or as a diagnosis of exclusion (Espay et al., 2018). On this account the symptom is produced by aberrant top-down processing: attention and expectation hijack a normally automatic function, so the signal arrives at the cortex but is not consciously accessed in the usual way.
Functional hearing loss fits this template as the auditory variant. A recent pediatric-neurology review argues explicitly for understanding functional hearing disorder in children within the FND framework, aligning its assessment and management with the rest of functional neurology rather than treating audition as a special case (Weisleder & Weisleder, 2022). The reframing has a practical payoff: it supplies a model to explain to patients and families — the hearing system works, but the brain is not currently giving it conscious access — that is both truthful and non-accusatory, and it brings to bear the growing evidence base on how functional symptoms are generated and treated.
The PTA–SRT discrepancy
Set the claimed pure-tone thresholds and the obtained speech-reception threshold (SRT). In genuine loss the pure-tone average (PTA) and the SRT agree to within about 10 dB; a large gap, with the SRT far better than the claimed PTA, is the classic flag of a functional overlay.
PTA = 45 dB − SRT = 15 dB → gap = 30 dB.
Illustrative decision aid, not a diagnostic instrument. A flag directs the clinician to the objective battery (OAE, acoustic reflex, ABR), which settles whether the system is intact.
The Stenger test
For a claimed one-sided loss, the same tone is presented to both ears at once. Only the louder tone reaches consciousness. Set the two levels and toggle whether the “bad” ear is truly deaf.
The Stenger addresses only claimed unilateral loss, and its assumptions are themselves being re-examined (Bell et al., 2025).
The conscious–unconscious spectrum
The modern account replaces the malingering/organic binary with a continuum of awareness and intent. The same objective audiogram can sit anywhere along it; slide to see how the clinical description changes.
The test battery establishes that a loss is functional; it does not locate the case on this line, which is inferred from history and course (Austen & Lynch, 2004).
Figure
Figure 1
The Pure-Tone / Speech-Threshold Discrepancy in Functional Hearing Loss
Worked Example
The PTA–SRT discrepancy is the easiest sign to make quantitative, so it is a good place to see how the diagnosis is reasoned. Consider a patient who, on pure-tone testing, produces an average threshold across the speech frequencies (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) of:
PTA = (40 + 50 + 45) / 3 = 45 dB HL.
A 45 dB average is a moderate loss; at that level, ordinary conversational speech (around 45–50 dB HL) should be near the edge of audibility, and the speech-reception threshold should land close to 45 dB. Suppose, however, that the measured SRT — the softest level at which the patient reliably repeats spondee words — comes out at 15 dB HL. The discrepancy is:
Δ = PTA − SRT = 45 − 15 = 30 dB.
In genuine loss this difference should be small, roughly ±10 dB; the SRT and PTA are two routes to the same underlying sensitivity and ought to agree. A 30 dB gap, with the SRT far better than the pure-tone audiogram, is not physiologically possible for a true cochlear loss: the patient is demonstrably understanding speech at 15 dB while claiming they cannot detect tones at 45 dB. The discrepancy therefore flags a functional overlay and directs the clinician to the objective battery (OAE, acoustic reflex, ABR) to confirm the intact system. The PtaSrtDiscrepancyDemo lets the reader set the claimed pure-tone thresholds and the obtained SRT and watch the gap — and the flag — update. The sign does not say why the patient is producing the loss; for that, the clinician turns to the conscious–unconscious spectrum, not to the audiometer.
Discussion
The history of functional hearing loss is a history of growing conceptual charity. The early literature was preoccupied with detection framed as unmasking — how to catch a malingerer — and built an ingenious battery of tests for exactly that purpose (Chaiklin & Ventry, 1966; Ventry, 1976; Rintelmann et al., 1991). That battery remains sound, and its objective core (OAE, reflexes, ABR) is now stronger than ever. What has changed is the interpretation placed on a positive finding. The reframing of nonorganic loss as a behavioural spectrum, and then as a functional neurological disorder, shifted the clinician's role from judge to describer, and the patient's status from suspect to person with a real, if differently caused, problem (Austen & Lynch, 2004; Espay et al., 2018).
The cost of that charity is diagnostic humility about intent. The objective tests can prove the ear works; they cannot read the mind, and no test locates a case on the conscious–unconscious continuum (Holenweg & Kompis, 2010). Intent must be inferred from context and course, which are fallible. This is an honest limit, not a failure: it mirrors the broader difficulty of inferring awareness and volition from behaviour anywhere in psychology, and it is why the responsible clinical language has moved from malingering as a default to functional as a description.
Cognitive and Psychological Implications
Functional hearing loss is a natural experiment in the gap between sensation and report. Every audiogram is a psychophysical measurement, and psychophysics has always known that a threshold is a decision about a stimulus, not a fixed physical boundary — the listener weighs evidence against a criterion and decides whether to respond. Functional hearing loss is that criterion pushed to an extreme, deliberately or not, and it shows in the starkest possible form that what we call hearing in the clinic is a behaviour sitting on top of a sensory process, separable from it. For the psychology of auditory perception, it is a standing demonstration that report and sensitivity are distinct, and that attention and expectation can gate conscious access to a signal the system has already encoded.
The condition also speaks to self-regulation and stress. In children, nonorganic loss is often a somatic expression of psychological stress, appearing around school or family difficulty and resolving when the stressor lifts (Schmidt et al., 2013). Studies of the cognitive profiles of affected children find associated differences in auditory processing and neuropsychological performance, suggesting the presentation is not simply nothing wrong but is embedded in a broader pattern of how the child is processing and coping (Rashid et al., 2018). And neuroimaging has begun to show that pediatric pseudohypacusis is accompanied by structural brain differences — increased grey-matter volume in medial frontal and superior temporal regions — hinting that the functional symptom has a measurable neural signature rather than being a pure fiction (Tomoda et al., 2012). For the cognitive scientist, functional hearing loss is thus a reminder that the aroused, stressed, attending mind can withhold a percept from awareness while the ear hears perfectly well.
Current Directions
Three threads run through the recent literature. The first is the FND reframing itself: integrating functional hearing loss into the functional-neurological-disorder family, with the assessment logic and non-accusatory explanatory models that come with it, is the most consequential current shift, especially in pediatrics (Weisleder & Weisleder, 2022; Espay et al., 2018). The second is methodological re-examination of the classic tests: the Stenger test and the rest of the historic battery, long taken for granted, are being critically re-appraised for their assumptions and limits, part of a wider effort to put functional-loss diagnosis on firmer psychometric footing (Bell et al., 2025). The third is the search for mechanism: neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies are moving the field past the ear is fine toward characterising what, in attention, processing, and brain structure, distinguishes these presentations (Tomoda et al., 2012; Rashid et al., 2018). Prevalence and demographic work continues to document that the condition is a real and recurring part of audiological practice, concentrated in children and adolescents, which keeps the clinical stakes concrete (Mathai et al., 2021).
Common Misconceptions
- Functional hearing loss means the person is lying.
- Only one pole of the spectrum — malingering — involves conscious deception. Many cases are unconscious conversion symptoms with no intent and no gain, and the diagnosis describes the behaviour, not the person's honesty (Austen & Lynch, 2004).
- If the tests are normal, there is nothing wrong.
- The auditory system is intact, but the person genuinely is not hearing normally in context. In the functional-disorder framework the problem is real — a disorder of how the brain accesses the signal, often tied to stress (Weisleder & Weisleder, 2022; Schmidt et al., 2013).
- A single clever test catches it.
- Diagnosis rests on a battery — behavioural discrepancies plus objective measures (OAE, acoustic reflex, ABR) — not on any one trick. The Stenger test addresses only claimed unilateral loss, and even it is being re-examined (Qiu et al., 1998; Bell et al., 2025).
- It only happens in adults seeking compensation.
- Functional hearing loss is common in children and adolescents, where it is typically linked to psychosocial stress rather than financial gain and often resolves when the stressor is addressed (Pracy et al., 1996; Mathai et al., 2021).
Glossary
- Acoustic reflex.
- An involuntary contraction of the middle-ear muscles to loud sound; its presence at levels below a claimed threshold is objective evidence of a functional overlay.
- Audiogram.
- A graph of a listener's hearing thresholds across frequencies; in functional hearing loss it reflects the levels the patient chooses to report rather than the ear's true sensitivity.
- Auditory brainstem response (ABR).
- An electrophysiological recording of the auditory nerve and brainstem's response to sound, yielding an estimated threshold with no voluntary component.
- Conversion disorder.
- A condition in which psychological distress is expressed as a genuine, involuntary neurological symptom; the unconscious pole of functional hearing loss.
- Functional neurological disorder (FND).
- A disorder of nervous-system functioning producing real neurological symptoms inconsistent with structural disease and not feigned; the modern family that functional hearing loss joins.
- Malingering.
- The deliberate fabrication or exaggeration of a symptom for an external incentive; the fully conscious pole of the spectrum.
- Nonorganic hearing loss.
- A hearing deficit with no identifiable organic lesion of the auditory system; a synonym for functional hearing loss.
- Otoacoustic emissions (OAE).
- Faint sounds generated by the healthy cochlea's outer hair cells, recordable in the ear canal; their presence confirms cochlear function objectively.
- Pseudohypacusis.
- Literally false hearing loss; another synonym for functional or nonorganic hearing loss, stressing the appearance of a deficit that is not physiologically real.
- Pure-tone average (PTA).
- The average of a listener's pure-tone thresholds at the speech frequencies (commonly 500, 1000, 2000 Hz), summarising the audiogram.
- Response criterion.
- In signal-detection terms, the internal threshold a listener applies before reporting a stimulus; a conservative criterion withholds responses to sounds the ear has detected, the mechanism underlying functional hearing loss.
- Speech-reception threshold (SRT).
- The softest level at which a listener can reliably repeat two-syllable (spondee) words; in genuine loss it agrees closely with the PTA.
- Spondee.
- A two-syllable word with equal stress on both syllables (e.g., baseball), used as the standard stimulus in speech-reception testing.
- Stenger test.
- A test for claimed unilateral loss based on the principle that, of the same tone presented to both ears, only the louder is consciously perceived.
Key Researchers
Sally Austen
(contemporary). Consultant clinical psychologist in deafness and mental health (UK); co-author of the influential 2004 reframing of nonorganic hearing loss as a spectrum of behaviour running from conscious deception to unconscious conversion. Biography
Alberto J. Espay
(contemporary). Professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati and a leader of the modern functional-neurological-disorder framework into which functional (psychogenic) hearing loss fits as a sensory variant. ORCID - Google Scholar - Faculty
Martin Kompis
(contemporary). Professor of audiology and ENT at the University of Bern and Inselspital; co-author of the systematic re-examination of the diagnostic signs of nonorganic hearing loss. Faculty
Pedro Weisleder
(contemporary). Pediatric neurologist at Nationwide Children's Hospital and The Ohio State University; co-author of the recent review framing functional hearing disorder in children within functional neurological disorder. ORCID
Frequently Asked Questions
What is functional hearing loss in simple terms?
It is a hearing problem in which the ear and auditory nerve work normally, but the person behaves as though they cannot hear. Because the auditory system itself is intact, the loss is called functional, nonorganic, or pseudohypacusis. It is diagnosed when the behavioural hearing test disagrees with objective physiological measures of the same ear (Rintelmann et al., 1991; Qiu et al., 1998).
Does functional hearing loss mean the person is faking?
Not necessarily. Faking for gain (malingering) is only one end of a spectrum. At the other end is conversion, a genuine and involuntary inability to hear produced unconsciously, with no deception and often no benefit to the person at all. Most cases are better described as functional than as fraudulent, and the modern approach avoids accusing the patient (Austen & Lynch, 2004).
How do audiologists detect it?
They look for inconsistency and then bypass the patient's cooperation. The classic clue is that the speech-reception threshold is much better than the claimed pure-tone average, which cannot happen in genuine loss. Objective tests that need no voluntary response (otoacoustic emissions, the acoustic reflex, and the auditory brainstem response) then confirm the system is working (Chaiklin & Ventry, 1966; Saravanappa et al., 2005; Holenweg & Kompis, 2010).
What is the Stenger test?
It is a test for someone claiming deafness in one ear. The same tone is played to both ears, softly in the good ear and louder in the ear said to be deaf. Because only the louder tone is consciously heard, a person faking a one-sided loss perceives only the bad-ear tone and, unwilling to admit it, stops responding, which exposes the functional loss. Its assumptions are currently being re-examined (Bell et al., 2025).
Is functional hearing loss common in children?
Yes. It is a recognised and recurring presentation in pediatric audiology, usually tied to stress at school or home rather than to any wish for gain, and it often resolves once the underlying stressor is addressed, with hearing returning to normal (Pracy et al., 1996; Schmidt et al., 2013; Mathai et al., 2021).
Is there anything actually wrong with the brain?
The hearing pathway is intact, but that does not mean nothing is wrong. In the functional-disorder view the problem lies in how the brain accesses the signal, and neuroimaging has found structural brain differences in affected children, suggesting a real neural basis rather than pure pretence (Tomoda et al., 2012; Weisleder & Weisleder, 2022).
How is it treated?
Treatment depends on where the case sits on the spectrum. Where there is an external incentive, removing it and offering reassurance may suffice; where the loss is an unconscious functional symptom, the approach mirrors that for other functional neurological disorders, namely a clear, non-accusatory explanation and, where needed, psychological support for the underlying stress (Espay et al., 2018; Weisleder & Weisleder, 2022).
Why does functional hearing loss interest cognitive psychology?
Because it pulls apart two things we usually treat as one: what the ear detects and what the person reports hearing. A hearing threshold is a decision about a signal, not a fixed physical limit, and functional hearing loss shows that attention, expectation, and emotional state can withhold a percept from awareness even when the sensory system has registered it perfectly (Rashid et al., 2018).
References
Aplin, D. Y., & Kane, J. M. (1985). Variables affecting pure tone and speech audiometry in experimentally simulated hearing loss. British Journal of Audiology, 19(3), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.3109/03005368509078976
Austen, S., & Lynch, C. (2004). Non-organic hearing loss redefined: understanding, categorizing and managing non-organic behaviour. International Journal of Audiology, 43(8), 449-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020400050057
Bell, A., Westcott, M., & Jedrzejczak, W. W. (2025). A critique of the Stenger test. Audiology Research, 15(5), 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15050115
Chaiklin, J. B., & Ventry, I. M. (1966). Test-retest reliability in functional hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 9(3), 476. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.0903.476
Espay, A. J., Aybek, S., Carson, A., Edwards, M. J., Goldstein, L. H., Hallett, M., LaFaver, K., LaFrance, W. C., Lang, A. E., Nicholson, T., Nielsen, G., Reuber, M., Voon, V., Stone, J., & Morgante, F. (2018). Current concepts in diagnosis and treatment of functional neurological disorders. JAMA Neurology, 75(9), 1132-1141. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1264
Holenweg, A., & Kompis, M. (2010). Non-organic hearing loss: new and confirmed findings. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 267(8), 1213-1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-010-1218-y
Mathai, J. P., Aravinda, H. R., Appu, S., & Urs, H. R. (2021). Prevalence and audiological findings of functional hearing loss: a retrospective study. Journal of the Indian Speech Language & Hearing Association, 35(2), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisha.jisha_6_21
Pracy, J. P., Walsh, R. M., Mepham, G. A., & Bowdler, D. A. (1996). Childhood pseudohypacusis. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 37(2), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-5876(96)01397-3
Qiu, W. W., Stucker, F. J., Yin, S. S., & Welsh, L. W. (1998). Current evaluation of pseudohypacusis: strategies and classification. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 107(8), 638-647. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348949810700802
Rashid, S. M. U., Mukherjee, D., & Ahmmed, A. U. (2018). Auditory processing and neuropsychological profiles of children with functional hearing loss. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 114, 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.07.054
Rintelmann, W. F., Schwan, S. A., & Blakley, B. W. (1991). Pseudohypacusis. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, 24(2), 381-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-6665(20)31145-2
Saravanappa, N., Mepham, G. A., & Bowdler, D. A. (2005). Diagnostic tools in pseudohypacusis in children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 69(9), 1235-1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.03.039
Schmidt, C. M., am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen, A., Matulat, P., Knief, A., Rosslau, K., & Deuster, D. (2013). Nonorganic hearing loss in children: audiometry, clinical characteristics, biographical history and recovery of hearing thresholds. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 77(7), 1190-1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.04.037
Tomoda, A., Kinoshita, S., Korenaga, Y., & Mabe, H. (2012). Pseudohypacusis in childhood and adolescence is associated with increased gray matter volume in the medial frontal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus. Cortex, 48(4), 492-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.10.001
Ventry, I. M. (1976). Pure tone-spondee threshold relationships in functional hearing loss: a hypothesis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 41(1), 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4101.16
Weisleder, D. H., & Weisleder, P. (2022). Functional hearing disorder in children. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 41, 100956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spen.2022.100956