Why Is Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Treated Differently from Other Types?

[Scruffiey]

I'm still trying to work through my hearing loss, but I keep hitting a brick wall when searching for answers.

Why do we differentiate between noise-induced hearing loss and other types of hearing loss? What difference does it make to the ears if the hair cells were damaged by earphones and headphones, a virus, or a drug? In all these cases, the same hair cells are affected.

Is there a science-based reason for this distinction, or is it simply something we have come to accept? It seems these cases are often treated very differently.

 

[Maruashen]

It seems to me that the approach depends on which doctor you see and which country you are in.

 

[Scruffiey]

It seems to me that the approach depends on which doctor you see and which country you are in.

Well, that may be true, but there seem to be some established "rules" we have as a community.

NIHL — no headphones.
SSHL — go ahead.
Pain hyperacusis — must be noise-induced.

I am just trying to make sense of where these ideas have come from. Or are they simply based on how we each react to tinnitus differently as individuals?

 

[Maruashen]

Well, like you said earlier, hearing loss can result from different causes. Some people develop it from noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), others from sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL), which often seems to be caused by some kind of virus. In most cases, doctors do not know the exact cause. Sometimes it can also be due to ototoxic drugs or something similar.

Hyperacusis feels like a completely different issue to me.

My hyperacusis gets much worse if I overprotect. By "overprotect," I mean truly using extreme protection, not just being cautious.

I suppose people often advise against using headphones because they can produce loud sounds very close to the ear. It is simply a risk that some people prefer not to take.

But like you mentioned, what is the difference between SSHL and NIHL damage? I honestly do not know.