Genealogy of Audiology

Full text

2,900+
OP EN ACCES S BO OKS
99,000+
INTERNA TIO NAL
AUT HORS A ND EDITO RS 93+ MILLION
DO WNLO ADS
BOOKS
DELIVERED TO
151 CO UNTRIES
AUT HORS A MONG
TOP 1%
MO ST CITED SC IENTIST
12.2%
AUT HORS A ND EDITO RS
FRO M TOP 5 00 UNIVERSITIES
Select ion of our boo ks indexe d in the
Boo k Citation Index in Web o f Science™
Core Co llection (BKCI)
Chapter from the bo ok
Advances in Clinical Audiology
Downloade d from: http://www.intechopen.com/books /advances -in-clinical-audiology
PUBLISH ED BY
World's largest Science,
Technology & Medicine
Open Access book publisher
Interested in publishing with InTechOpen?
Contact us at book.department@intechopen.com

Chapter 1
Introductory Chapter - Genealogy of Audiology
Stavros Hatzopoulos
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67437
Provisional chapter
© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Introductory Chapter - Genealogy of Audiology
Stavros Hatzopoulos
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
1. Introduction
The twenty‐rst century clinical Audiology has not been very creative in terms of novel break-
throughs, since the majority of clinical novelties, we routinely used today, were discovered in
the 1970s and the 1980s. The trend, which can be observed in the last few decades, is an ame-
lioration of our technological approaches/strategies to restore an impaired hearing function
with hearing aids, middle ear prostheses, and cochlear implants. New and novel procedural
developments have not surfaced yet to clinical practice.
A Scopus literature search within the last 5 years shows, for example, that there are develop-
ments in procedures related to (i) cortical‐evoked potentials, such as the speech‐evoked audi-
tory brainstem responses (see the relative chapter in this volume) and (ii) various protocol
developments in the area of steady‐state responses (ASSR), with applications to the newly
charted area of electrically evoked SSRs [1, 2]. Important aspects of novel hearing restoration
strategies including gene therapy [3], stem cells [4, 5], and related intracochlear distribution
nanotechnologies [6, 7] are still at best in a preclinical phase.
From my personal experience as an educator, I have found that very few of our colleagues and
graduate students have a clear idea about the origins of Audiology. This book deals with the
latest advances in this eld, which can only make sense if we recall briey our point of origin.
2. Genealogy of the term “Audiology”
As we start 2017, clinical Audiology celebrates a historical span of 71 years, according to
Kenneth Berger. In 1976, Berger published an article [8] in the Journal of the American Audiology
Society (AAS), where he presented his ndings regarding the time occurrence of the term
“Audiology.” The rst printed reference of the term originates back in 1946. In the 1946,
© 2017 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Journal of Speech Disorders on page 218 appears a brief announcement that the “Speech Clinic
at the U.S. Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, is the permanent Naval center for rehabilitation and
for research in Speech and Audiology.”
Interestingly, according to Berger [8] the term “Audiology” cannot be aributed to a spe-
cic individual, a notion which contracts what I have learned in my academic training in the
US, where it was considered common knowledge that Raymond Carhart was the father of
Audiology. Berger [8] reports the following: “the original creator of the term (Audiology) remains
unknown, but possible originators are considered: (i) Mayer BA Schier; (ii) Willard B Hargrave ; (iii)
Stanley Nowak; (iv) Norman Caneld; (v) Raymond Carhart [9]. In a biographical prole by Robert
Galambos, Hallowell Davis [10] is credited with coining the term in the 1940s, when he said that the
then‐prevalent term “auricular training” sounded like a method of teaching people how to wiggle their
ears.” It is interesting to note that from these six pioneering contributors, four (Carhart and
Davis excluded) were related to technical elds (electroacoustics).
3. Deviations of the term “Audiology”
From the mid‐1970s, several terms have appeared in print, regarding clinical activities
which were deviated from the classical categorization of “Audiology.” Typical examples
are the following terms: “Hearing Science” [11]; “Clinical Auditory Science” [12]; “Auditory
NeuroScience” [12], and so on. It is still dicult to dene and discriminate these terms, since
the Audiological training is very dierent around the globe. For example, in most European
countries, Audiology is a medical specialization, while the Speech and Hearing Science is
associated with communication department curricula. So in an aempt to dene all terms, one
can assume that activities related to Hearing Science/Auditory Science have a “research inspi-
ration” objective (more research or education oriented) derived from basic Neurosciences,
while the terms Audiology or Clinical Audiology refer to a basic clinical activity of assessing
the hearing of a human subject.
To summarize, my objective in conjunction with the contributions and collaboration of the
participated authors for this “Advances” volume was to collect material from a Hearing
Science perspective, which could be applied to the everyday clinical Audiological reality.
4. What “advances” can be?
Considering the long history of Audiology and Hearing Science, it is only natural that
numerous and fundamental volumes exist (as the all‐time reference by Ka [13]) in
English and in many other languages. So it was an interesting challenge to chart the latest
“advances” in the eld and to nd the best way to diuse the new information to students
and professionals.
The term “advances” implies a further development on a specic topic. For the area of
Audiology, this would mean developments in the following thematic areas: (i) clinical hearing
assessment procedures, (ii) rehabilitation strategies, (iii) hardware development (more precise
Advances in Clinical Audiology4

equipment, beer sensors, lower noise, etc.), (iv) telemedicine/teleconsultation concepts, and
(v) new methods of long‐distance learning and undergraduate/graduate course delivery. Any
of these areas could have been the exclusive topic of the present volume.
For practical reasons (and with the hopes that other future books can follow covering the
remaining thematic areas), the focus of the present volume is limited to the rst two major
thematic areas, namely to developments in assessment procedures and rehabilitation strategies
(cochlear implants).
Author details
Stavros Haopoulos
Address all correspondence to: sdh1@unife.it
Clinic of Audiology and ENT, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
References
[1] Deprez H, Gransier R, Hofmann M, vanWieringen A, Wouters J, Moonen M.
Characterization of cochlear implant artifacts in electrically evoked auditory steady
state responses. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 2017;31:127–138.
[2] Santos TS, Silva JJ, Lins OG, Melges DB, Tierra‐Criollo CJ. Detection eciency of
auditory steady state responses evoked by modulated noise. Hearing Research
2016;339:125–131.
[3] Akil O, Seal RP, Burke K, Wang C, Alemi A, During M, Edwards R, Lustig L. Restoration
of hearing in the VGLUT3 knockout mouse using virally mediated gene therapy. Neuron
2012;75:283–293.
[4] Ohlemiller KK, Jones SM, Johnson KR. Application of mouse models to research in hear-
ing and balance. JARO 2016;17:493–523.
[5] Stark D, Rosenberg AR, Johnson D, Knight K, Caperon L, Uleryk E, Frazier AL, Sung L.
Patient‐reported measures of hearing loss and tinnitus in pediatric cancer and hemato-
poietic stem cell transplantation: A systematic review. Journal of Speech Language and
Hearing Research 2016;59:1247–1252.
[6] Plontke SK, Goe G, Rahne T, Liebau A. Intracochlear drug delivery in combination
with cochlear implants. Current aspects. HNO 2016;64:797–807.
[7] Wise AK, Tan J, Wang YJ, Caruso F, Shepherd RK. Improved auditory nerve survival
with nanoengineered supraparticles for neurotrophin delivery into the deafened
cochlea. PLoS One 2016;11(10).1–17.
Introductory Chapter - Genealogy of Audiology
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67437
5

[8] Berger KW. Genealogy of the words “audiology” and “audiologist”. Journal of the
American Audiology Society. 1976;2(2):38–44.
[9] Raymond C. Papers, 1938–1975. Northwestern University Archives, Evanston, Illinois.
1912–1975. The material can be downloaded from this link: hp://ndingaids.library.
northwestern.edu/catalog/inu‐ead‐nua‐archon‐1226.
[10] Hallowell D. A Biographical Memoir by Robert Galambos (in the National Academy
of Sciences). 1896–1992. Can be downloaded from this link: hp://www.nasonline.org/
publications/biographical‐memoirs/memoir‐pdfs/davis‐hallowell.pdf
[11] John D.D, Jean HL. (editors). Bases of Hearing Science (third edition). Williams and
Wilkins, Baltimore 2002.
[12] Kraus N, McGee T. Auditory event related potentials. Handbook of Clinical Audiology.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1994. pp. 406–423.
[13] Ka J. (editor). Handbook of Clinical Audiology (fth edition). Williams & Wilkins,
Baltimore 2001.
Advances in Clinical Audiology6