I was talking about the hyperacusis that might develop if one overprotects. In that case, you gradually expose yourself to noise (e.g., find the volume on a TV that is on the edge of bearable, and then try to listen to that volume for a couple of minutes and after an hour or two slightly increase the volume and listen to that for a couple of minutes, etc.
Actually, your point inspired me to read
https://www.audiologyonline.com/art...eracusis-phonophobia-tinnitus-retraining-1105
again. There are several glaring things that bother me about this case study.
1. Never at any point do they talk about whether or not the patient had
evidence that his precautions were necessary. They keep talking about "phobia" and how he needed reassurance. Reassurance of what? Did he not have evidence that sounds made him worse? This is super important. I don't think anyone on here disagrees with the fact that you should expose yourself to sound if your body doesn't get a setback from it.
2. In the Discussion, the authors write "It is difficult -- if not impossible -- to determine the particular contributions of physical vs psychological components to this patient's condition."
But it really shouldn't be unless you don't believe the patient. Again, what was his evidence for his precautions? Was he like, "I just know sounds would make me worse." Or was it more like, "I tried living without putting bricks over my windows, and noise X gave me a massive setback"? None of this is discussed.
3.
where is the discussion about under protection? Maybe the patient got that way in the first place because of under protection. Why is his past evidence so irrelevant to this problem?
Also, this is about extreme as over protection can get, and he
still saw improvements after decades of isolation. You would think the conclusion of this case study would be...maybe we should look at under protection? After all, a guy who isolated from all sounds for that long still came back from it. The idea that this same principle is being advised to new people -- and taking precedent over not making the problem worse -- is ridiculous.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm clowning the patient. I don't blame him for any of his decisions. I just wish the study didn't take the approach of "TRT is going to help this guy. Let's work backwards from there."