Author Response to Peck (2018), “Questionable Use of ‘Nonorganic’ in ‘Estimating Nonorganic Hearing Thresholds’”

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this letter is to respond to Dr. Peck's (2018) letter to the editor regarding the use of the term “nonorganic” to describe hearing loss, demonstrated by the pure tone audiogram that cannot be explained or is greater than what can be explained by a physiological auditory disorder. Conclusions We prefer the term “nonorganic” rather than the term “false and exaggerated hearing loss.” “Nonorganic,” in our view, is a nonjudgmental term and, as stated by Austen and Lynch (2004), implies “as little as possible about its cause” (p. 450).