对斯登格测验的批判

IF 1.8 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Andrew Bell, Myriam Westcott, W Wiktor Jedrzejczak
{"title":"对斯登格测验的批判","authors":"Andrew Bell, Myriam Westcott, W Wiktor Jedrzejczak","doi":"10.3390/audiolres15050115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Most audiometers have an in-built \"Stenger test\" setting. The test is sometimes applied in cases of single-sided deafness as an indicator of malingering. Although textbooks have been written about it, the underlying conditions remain enigmatic. The literature usually points to psychological problems, pointing to the patient as having \"nonorganic hearing loss\", \"malingering\", \"false and exaggerated hearing loss\", \"hysterical hearing loss\", or \"pseudohypoacusis\". These are all non-objective features without a sound scientific base, and the test tends to blame the patient for providing non-repeatable hearing thresholds.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This opinion piece looks at the literature surrounding the Stenger test and the factors that might cause hearing threshold variability and concludes that the test has a subjective basis that makes it unscientific. In our opinion, we also think it is ethically questionable to blame the patient for malingering when there are non-repeatable findings. In order to make the test scientifically valid, we frame a testable hypothesis: that the Stenger effect could be due to unrecognised contraction of the middle ear muscles in response to stimulation of the contralateral (worse-hearing) ear. That is, we suppose that bilateral contraction impairs thresholds in both the good and poor ear, so the subject can no longer hear a tone in their good ear which they previously could when their audiogram was established monaurally. Thus, we make the case that the subject is not malingering-they genuinely cannot hear the test tones in either ear.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>We believe it is incorrect to blame the patient when the problem may lie with incomplete understanding of how the auditory system functions bilaterally. The test needs to be objectively investigated and perhaps reinterpreted in terms of hearing sensitivity in one ear being reduced by sound levels in the contralateral ear. If this is not possible, we suggest it would be better if the Stenger test were abolished.</p>","PeriodicalId":44133,"journal":{"name":"Audiology Research","volume":"15 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452635/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critique of the Stenger Test.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Bell, Myriam Westcott, W Wiktor Jedrzejczak\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/audiolres15050115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Most audiometers have an in-built \\\"Stenger test\\\" setting. The test is sometimes applied in cases of single-sided deafness as an indicator of malingering. Although textbooks have been written about it, the underlying conditions remain enigmatic. The literature usually points to psychological problems, pointing to the patient as having \\\"nonorganic hearing loss\\\", \\\"malingering\\\", \\\"false and exaggerated hearing loss\\\", \\\"hysterical hearing loss\\\", or \\\"pseudohypoacusis\\\". These are all non-objective features without a sound scientific base, and the test tends to blame the patient for providing non-repeatable hearing thresholds.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This opinion piece looks at the literature surrounding the Stenger test and the factors that might cause hearing threshold variability and concludes that the test has a subjective basis that makes it unscientific. In our opinion, we also think it is ethically questionable to blame the patient for malingering when there are non-repeatable findings. In order to make the test scientifically valid, we frame a testable hypothesis: that the Stenger effect could be due to unrecognised contraction of the middle ear muscles in response to stimulation of the contralateral (worse-hearing) ear. That is, we suppose that bilateral contraction impairs thresholds in both the good and poor ear, so the subject can no longer hear a tone in their good ear which they previously could when their audiogram was established monaurally. Thus, we make the case that the subject is not malingering-they genuinely cannot hear the test tones in either ear.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>We believe it is incorrect to blame the patient when the problem may lie with incomplete understanding of how the auditory system functions bilaterally. The test needs to be objectively investigated and perhaps reinterpreted in terms of hearing sensitivity in one ear being reduced by sound levels in the contralateral ear. If this is not possible, we suggest it would be better if the Stenger test were abolished.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Audiology Research\",\"volume\":\"15 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452635/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Audiology Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15050115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Audiology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15050115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:大多数听力计都有内置的“斯坦格测试”设置。该测试有时应用于单侧耳聋的情况下,作为装病的指标。尽管教科书上已经写过这方面的内容,但潜在的条件仍然是个谜。文献通常指向心理问题,指出患者有“非器质性听力损失”、“装病”、“虚假和夸大的听力损失”、“歇斯底里性听力损失”或“假性听觉减退”。这些都是没有科学依据的非客观特征,而且测试往往会指责患者提供了不可重复的听力阈值。方法:这篇观点文章回顾了有关Stenger测试的文献和可能导致听力阈变异性的因素,并得出结论,该测试具有主观基础,使其不科学。在我们看来,我们也认为,在发现不可重复的情况下,指责病人装病在伦理上是有问题的。为了使测试在科学上有效,我们提出了一个可检验的假设:斯登格效应可能是由于中耳肌肉对对侧(听力较差)耳朵的刺激作出的未被识别的收缩。也就是说,我们假设双侧收缩削弱了好耳和坏耳的阈值,因此受试者在他们的好耳中再也听不到音调,而他们以前在单侧建立听力图时可以听到音调。因此,我们认为实验对象并不是在装病——他们确实两只耳朵都听不到测试音调。讨论和结论:我们认为,当问题可能在于对双侧听觉系统功能的不完全理解时,指责患者是不正确的。该测试需要客观调查,并可能根据一只耳朵的听力灵敏度因对侧耳朵的声音水平而降低而重新解释。如果这是不可能的,我们建议最好取消斯登格测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Critique of the Stenger Test.

Introduction: Most audiometers have an in-built "Stenger test" setting. The test is sometimes applied in cases of single-sided deafness as an indicator of malingering. Although textbooks have been written about it, the underlying conditions remain enigmatic. The literature usually points to psychological problems, pointing to the patient as having "nonorganic hearing loss", "malingering", "false and exaggerated hearing loss", "hysterical hearing loss", or "pseudohypoacusis". These are all non-objective features without a sound scientific base, and the test tends to blame the patient for providing non-repeatable hearing thresholds.

Methods: This opinion piece looks at the literature surrounding the Stenger test and the factors that might cause hearing threshold variability and concludes that the test has a subjective basis that makes it unscientific. In our opinion, we also think it is ethically questionable to blame the patient for malingering when there are non-repeatable findings. In order to make the test scientifically valid, we frame a testable hypothesis: that the Stenger effect could be due to unrecognised contraction of the middle ear muscles in response to stimulation of the contralateral (worse-hearing) ear. That is, we suppose that bilateral contraction impairs thresholds in both the good and poor ear, so the subject can no longer hear a tone in their good ear which they previously could when their audiogram was established monaurally. Thus, we make the case that the subject is not malingering-they genuinely cannot hear the test tones in either ear.

Discussion and conclusions: We believe it is incorrect to blame the patient when the problem may lie with incomplete understanding of how the auditory system functions bilaterally. The test needs to be objectively investigated and perhaps reinterpreted in terms of hearing sensitivity in one ear being reduced by sound levels in the contralateral ear. If this is not possible, we suggest it would be better if the Stenger test were abolished.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Audiology Research
Audiology Research AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
23.50%
发文量
56
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of Audiology Research is to publish contemporary, ethical, clinically relevant scientific researches related to the basic science and clinical aspects of the auditory and vestibular system and diseases of the ear that can be used by clinicians, scientists and specialists to improve understanding and treatment of patients with audiological and neurotological disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信