Clinical Interventions for Hyperacusis in Adults: A Scoping Review to Assess the Current Position and Determine Priorities for Research.
Hyperacusis is the perception of everyday environmental sound as being overwhelmingly loud or intense. Other terminology in use includes reduced, decreased, or collapsed sound tolerance. It differs from phonophobia which is an episodic sound intolerance experienced by some people during migraine attacks, sometimes associated with other sensory sensitivities, and which abates as the attack recedes . It can also be differentiated from misophonia which is an acquired aversive reaction to specific human generated sounds such as eating sound or breathing, the response being characterised by anger and sometimes rage [2, 3].
As with other subjective symptoms, data on the prevalence Of hyperacusis is strongly influenced by how the enquiry about the symptom was worded. In children and adolescents, the variability in wording of the enquiry in prevalence studies has been found to be so great as to render comparison across studies to be meaningless . In a study of 7096 11-yearold children in the UK, 3.7% answered affirmatively to the question "do you ever experience oversensitivity or distress to particular sounds?" . In adults, variability of the questions asked across studies of hyperacusis also significantly impacts on the ability to identify prevalence figures. Using the question "Do you consider yourself sensitive to everyday sounds?," Andersson and colleagues  found that of 1,174 adults that answered the question via either the Internet or post, 8.6% (95% CI = 7.0-10.0) responded affirmatively. Another Swedish study  in adults asked 3406 participants, "Do you have a hard time tolerating everyday sounds that you believe most other people can tolerate?" and found 9.2% responded affirmatively, with 1.9% reporting that they had been diagnosed with hyperacusis by a physician.
There is an apparent association between hyperacusis and tinnitus, with 86% of adult patients with a primary complaint of hyperacusis experience tinnitus  and 40% of patients with a primary complaint of tinnitus experience hyperacusis as well . Many people with troublesome hyperacusis have normal or age appropriate hearing thresholds, but cochlear hearing loss has also been reported . Medical conditions associated with hyperacusis include closed head injury, depression, posttraumatic stress syndrome, Williams syndrome, and pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia . The physiological mechanisms that underpin hyperacusis are not well understood, and there is no compelling animal model. A consensus is emerging in the auditory neuroscience literature that hyperacusis may be associated with a sustained and persistent increase in central auditory gain .
A framework with which to categorise patients with hyperacusis has been proposed . The subtypes consisted of hyperacusis that is characterised by loudness, annoyance, fear, or pain. This schema was not based upon empirical data and may serve to illustrate the various characteristics that can define the lived experience of hyperacusis, rather than to support diagnosis or treatment. Regardless, hyperacusis is a complex symptom which can have negative effects on daily functioning such as hearing, sleep, concentration, and emotional well-being that can vary daily and between individuals. Management, therefore, can be complex with approaches taken including cognitive behaviour therapy, Tinnitus Retraining Therapy, or sound therapy . Complex interventions such as these need to be developed and evaluated in a systematic way to have confidence in the effectiveness of the intervention for the given population .
The purpose of this scoping review is to identify research gaps in existing literature and elements that should underpin the design of any new studies. The aim of this scoping review is to consider the current position of research on hyperacusis in adults. Specifically, the objective here is to identify
(i) how hyperacusis is currently defined in research studies,
(ii) How it is currently measured (i.e., what measures are used for diagnosis and outcome and are they adequate?),
(iii) What the level of evidence is for current management options (i.e., what has been previously studied and to what extent?).
2. Materials and Methods
This review is reported according to the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley  using the six-stage process. In this process (1) the purpose and research questions were defined, (2) relevant studies were identified, (3) studies were selected using an iterative approach through title, abstract, and full-text screening by three members of team (KF, IP, and GSS), (4) data were extracted and charted by two members of the team (KF, IP), (5) the results were collated, summarised, and reported, and (6) two clinical experts, who were not involved in the data extraction or collating and summarising results, were consulted and reviewed the findings.
2.1. Eligibility Criteria. To be included, records were required to report studies in which adults ([greater than or equal to] 18 years old) reported hyperacusis as a primary complaint or secondary complaint or as part of a symptom set. Records were included where management strategies (i.e., interventions) were tested to address hyperacusis. Records were eligible from Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), nonrandomised control trials, cohort studies, case series, and case studies. Review articles including systematic reviews, epidemiology articles, and any sources reporting personal/expert opinions were excluded. No records were excluded based on controls used, outcomes reached, timing, setting, or study design. Records were excluded for studies reporting misophonia, phonophobia, and loudness recruitment.
All included records were published in the English language. Where multiple eligible unique records pertaining to a single trial were identified, the record that was published first was included and any secondary analyses of the data were excluded.
2.2. Search Strategy. The search strategy followed a recommended three-step approach [16, 17]. In Step 1, to test keywords and search terms, a limited search in PsycINFO and Embase was conducted, checking the availability of relevant titles and abstracts. This allowed us to develop search term combinations to use across a wider search in step two. The search strategy included hyperacusis and terms for identifying research studies, such as intervention, therapy, treatment, management, assessment, outcome, and diagnoses (diagnostic) with narrow terms such as measure and test (Table 1). In Step 2, to identify relevant research studies, electronic databases of peer reviewed journals were searched in the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; Embase; PsycINFO; Scopus; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Web of Science; the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and Google Scholar. Specific search term strategies were applied in each search engine, searching article topics, titles, abstracts, and keywords. Where possible, filters were applied to retrieve articles in the English language and using human participants only. There was no restriction in the search period as we wanted to include all available research up until the present time.
In Step 3, to seek further eligible documents for inclusion, we performed manual searches of the reference lists of any relevant review articles which had hyperacusis in the title.
In addition, manual searches of the most common journals (determined using the interquartile rule for outliers) in which eligible records had been sourced were conducted. The final manual search was conducted in April 2017.
2.3. Study Selection. Articles identified through electronic and manual searches were exported with citations, title, and abstract into Endnote where duplicates were removed. Search records were screened independently by two researchers out of a team of three (KF, IP, and GSS), first screening by title and abstract and then by full text. When disagreements regarding the inclusion or exclusion of any given record arose, the two researchers discussed their rationale until agreement was reached or a third researcher (DH) was consulted to reach a majority decision.
2.4. Data Extraction. A data extraction form was developed and piloted on two included records and was subsequently modified following team discussions. Data from each article were extracted by two researchers (KF and IP). Data were extracted on study characteristics, definition of hyperacusis, assessment measures used, and interventions (Box 1).
3.1. Study Selection. Figure 1 illustrates the flow of study records identified, screened, included, and excluded (with reasons for exclusion). Electronic searches yielded an initial set of 1708 records. Duplicates were removed and of the remaining 792 records, 710 were excluded because the title and abstract indicated that the article did not fit our eligibility criteria. Most commonly the studies excluded did not focus on hyperacusis or did not report treatment of hyperacusis. Manual searches of included records in review articles identified a further 27 potential articles which were subjected to full-text screening. Manual searches in the selected journals identified one additional eligible record. Sixty-seven records were excluded at the full-text screening stage. Commonly, this was because the record did not report on the treatment or management of hyperacusis or was based on expert opinion or a review of the literature. For 1 record the reference was incomplete and could not be found. Full-text records could not be located for a further 2 records. None of these records could be traced, regardless of support from the University of Nottingham librarian. The electronic and manual searches created a final list of 43 eligible full-text records for data collection.
3.2. Study Characteristics. Of the 43 included full-text articles, there were 34 journal articles, six conference papers, and three book chapters. Articles were published from 1984, with the majority published after 2001 and the most recent being published in 2016. Records were predominantly reporting studies from the USA, UK, Australia, India, South Korea, and European countries. Of the included records, 23 were case studies [19, 25-27, 34-38, 40-43, 49-58], seven were cohort studies [28, 29, 39, 44, 46, 59, 60], five were RCTs [18, 20, 21, 30, 47], four were Nonrandomised Controlled Trials [22, 23, 31, 48], and four were retrospective studies [24, 32, 33,45].
3.3. Population Characteristics. Of the 43 included records, 16 studies [18, 19, 21-25, 38, 39, 41-43, 55-57, 60] included patients reporting hyperacusis as a primary complaint. Of these studies, nine (53%) were case studies and only two (12%) were RCTs (Table 2). Equally, 16 studies [34-37, 40, 44, 45, 47, 49-54, 58, 59] included patients reporting hyperacusis as part of a set of symptoms, the most common of which were tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, or aural fullness. The remaining 11 studies included patients reporting hyperacusis as a secondary complaint to tinnitus [20, 26-28, 30-33, 48] and/or hearing loss [29, 46]. Duration of the participants hyperacusis was not reported in 29 studies [20-26,28-33, 38, 39, 42-48, 50-53, 56, 57, 59]. For the remaining 14 studies [18, 19, 27, 34-37, 40, 41, 49, 54, 55, 58, 60], the duration of hyperacusis reported ranged from 6 weeks in a surgical case study  to 27 years in an "acoustic training" case study .
3.4. Current Definitions for Hyperacusis. Fourteen studies [26-28, 31-33, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 57] did not provide a working definition of hyperacusis. Across the remaining studies, common terminologies were used to define hyperacusis, with four main themes identified (Figure 2).
Box 1: Data extraction fields. First author surname Year of publication Study Title Publication type: journal article, report, conference paper, undergraduate dissertation, postgraduate dissertation, book chapter, webpage, or other (please specify) Country where study was conducted Aim of study Terminology used to describe hyperacusis Study design: case report, case series, cohort study, retrospective study, non-randomised control trial, randomised control trial, or other Study design (if other) Methods: questionnaire, focus groups, interviews, audiometric tests, clinical tests, medical/physical investigations, or combination Sample size for primary analysis (not follow up) Study population: patients, general public, students or combination Setting Age Gender Hyperacusis complaint: primary, secondary or as part of symptom set What are the comorbid conditions/syndrome/symptom set? Hyperacusis-related symptoms reported Average duration of hyperacusis in years (SD) Measures used for screening of hyperacusis to the study Assessment time points Outcome measures used on patients with hyperacusis Treatment primarily aimed at hyperacusis Nature of therapeutic interventions reported (summarise key components) Treatment outcomes from questionnaires Treatment outcomes from LDLs Treatment outcomes--anecdotal reports Study limitations Further research priorities specified
One theme that emerged from the definitions focused on "reductions" in sound tolerance [24, 34, 38, 43, 50, 60]. Authors described hyperacusis as "a reduction of normal tolerance for everyday sounds" , "decreased sound tolerance" , "lowered threshold for sound tolerance" , or "the collapse of loudness tolerance" . In contrast to this, other studies emphasised the "increased sensitivity" to sound [20, 29, 35, 39, 40, 42, 46, 53, 55]. This theme included descriptors such as "hypersensitivity," "oversensitivity," or "abnormal sensitivity" to define the degree of tolerance to sounds (Figure 2). One author used descriptors that indicated increased loudness, "a disproportionate growth in subjective loudness of sounds" . Other definitions referred to "intolerance" to sounds that had been deemed as ordinary [18, 19,21,30,37,41,58,59]. Authors referred to "noise intolerance to ordinary sounds" , "unusual intolerance" [18, 19], or "intolerance to the loudness of sounds that most individuals deem to be tolerable" . The last theme to emerge included definitions that referred to the physical or emotional reaction to the sound, such as "subject exhibits negative reactions" , "abnormal, generally painful perception of loudness" , or the "response or reaction from the auditory cortex" [22, 36].
Underlying these themes, throughout, was the common concept of the tolerance to sound being different from "normal." Definitions referred to sound tolerance of "normal listeners" , "a normal person" , "a typical person" , or "others"  in comparison to sound tolerance of patients with hyperacusis. For example, Formby et al.  described hyperacusis as a "general intolerance to the loudness of sounds that would not typically be bothersome for most individuals." In some cases, the response to "ordinary" or "everyday" environmental sounds was described as "unusual" [18, 19, 55] or "abnormal" [22, 23, 36, 42], and in one case the response was described as "exaggerated or inappropriate" .
Across the themes reductions, sensitivity, and intolerance, some authors noted within their working definitions the overt physical and emotional responses evoked by the perception of sounds. These authors highlighted the "bothersome" [30,39], "distressing" , or "disabling"  nature of the sounds, the "discomfort" [19, 40, 43, 49, 55] or "pain" [23, 49] caused by the perception of sound, or the negative reaction to exposure to sound . In one case, Silverstein et al.  listed associated symptoms of "emotional, social and physical" reactions to hyperacusis within their working definition.
3.5. Assessment Tools Used for Diagnosis and Outcome. In six studies (14%), the assessment tools used to quantify or diagnosis hyperacusis were not stated [20, 21, 39, 43, 47, 59]. Sixteen studies used clinical interviews (history and examination) to assess patient symptoms [28,29,35,36,41,42,46,4957]. Most of these studies were case series and reports, with some implying that interviews were used but not explicitly stating this.
Of the remaining 21 studies [18, 19, 22-27, 30-34, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45, 48, 58, 60], audiometric measures (Loudness Discomfort Levels (LDLs), Maximum Comfort Levels (MCLs), and Dynamic Range (DR)) and patient self-reported measurement tools (Baltimore questionnaire (VAS) , Sound Hypersensitivity Questionnaire , Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HQ) , Hyperacusis test (12-item) , a non-validated Hyperacusis Questionnaire adapted from Gerauschuberempfindlichkeit (GUF ) , and Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT) assessment interview ) were reported to assess hyperacusis. Most commonly reported were LDLs, the HQ and TRT assessment interview. The six studies [18,22,24, 30, 31, 37] that reported using LDLs varied in the dB values used to quantifyhyperacusis. Gold et al.  and Hazell et al.  specified that average LDLs should be below 100 dB HL for 1, 2, 3, and 8 kHz in both ears (pure tones), whilst Juris et al.  and Formby et al.  specified that LDLs using pure tones should be <90 dB HL in at least one ear at the frequencies of 0.5,1, and 2 kHz or from at least two frequencies in the range 0.5 kHz to 4 kHz, respectively. In contrast, McKinney et al.  specified less commonly used LDLs using pure tones of less than 88.39 dB SPL and 81.24 dB SPL to classify individuals as having hyperacusis with normal hearing and hearing loss, respectively. Ruth and Hamill-Ruth  did not specify any criteria for LDLs. A similar case was found across the four studies reporting the HQ [19,45,48, 58]. Only one study  specifically identified a value on the HQ that would diagnose hyperacusis (36 points). Seven studies used the TRT assessment interview to classify patients into one of five categories associated with tinnitus and hyperacusis [24-27, 32-34]. Of these studies, only Hazell et al.  explicitly referred to categories 3 and 4 (hyperacusis present).
The most commonly specified posttreatment outcome measures were LDLs and the HQ (Tables 2-4). Nineteen studies reported increases in LDLs after treatment as either a primary [18, 21-25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 42, 47, 60] or secondary outcome [19, 28, 36, 38, 39, 58]. Six studies reported changes in HQ scores as the primary outcome [19, 39, 45, 46, 48, 58] or secondary outcome measure . Of the 43 included records, 13 case studies [26, 35-37, 41, 43, 49, 50, 52-57] and two cohort studies [29, 59] relied on patient self-reported change in hyperacusis through clinical assessment at follow-up. One study  did not state a hyperacusis-specific outcome measure, only reporting the Tinnitus Questionnaire  as an outcome measure. The remaining studies reported a variety of different outcome measures, ranging from single item visual analogue scales to multi-item hyperacusis-specific questionnaires such as Multiple Activity Scale for Hyperacusis (MASH)  and Sound Hypersensitivity Questionnaire .
There is reasonable body of evidence on the development and reliability of the HQ as a diagnostic tool [63, 68], but the validity and reliability of the HQ as an outcome measure are yet to be fully examined. Questions have been raised on the appropriateness of the items in the questionnaire and the need of validation in a population with a primary complaint of hyperacusis is known . Evidence for the reliability of LDLs is variable [69, 70] with reliability depending on a number of factors including instructions given to patients  and choice of sound stimuli . Importantly, there are inconsistencies in the relationship between LDLs and self-report sound tolerance, with LDLs (using pure tones or speech sounds) often failing to reliably relate to self-reports of tolerance sounds in daily life .
3.6. Current Management Options for Hyperacusis. All 43 included records reported potential treatment benefits for hyperacusis (Tables 2-4). However, only nineteen studies (44%) sought to evaluate interventions or management strategies specifically aimed at reducing hyperacusis [18, 19, 21-25, 35, 38-43, 49, 56-58, 60]. For the most part, the studies explored interventions that were primarily aimed at reducing tinnitus. Management strategies explored were Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), TRT, counselling, devices, pharmacological therapy, and surgery.
3.7. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Three studies explored the potential benefits of CBT [18-20] (Table 2). Juris et al.  reported an RCT investigating the benefits of CBT for patients experiencing hyperacusis. Treatment comprised general CBT principles that were aimed to educate, target overt emotional reactions to sounds though graded exposure to sounds, reduce stress though relaxation, and provide patients with the tools to manage more difficult situations and restart activities (behavioural activation). After treatment, patients in the CBT group showed a significant reduction in hyperacusis severity as assessed by the HQ and an increase in LDLs from baseline, compared to the waiting list group. Only small effects were observed for quality of life and depression, and symptoms of anxiety were unchanged. Fioretti et al.  reported a case study in which a patient with hyperacusis underwent a four-month course of pharmacological therapy with bilateral sound generators (graded sound exposure) and CBT to target fear of sounds. Reduced hyperacusis-related symptoms were reported. Following this, the patient suspended treatment and underwent chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eight months later, after cancer treatment, the patient reported worsening of hyperacusis symptoms. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors and a further 4 months of CBT were prescribed. Following treatment, the patient reported an improvement in mood (depression, hostility, and sadness) and sound tolerance. In this case, no details were provided on the components of CBT. Hiller and Haerkotter  reported an RCT investigating CBT and the possible additional effects of sound stimulation on improving severity of tinnitus. In this study, one group received treatment comprised of an educational component (tinnitus education) in which patients learned about and applied psychological concepts such as "vicious cycle" and "coping cycle" to their personal situations with tinnitus. The second group completed ten sessions of CBT, including education (avoiding silence), changing thought processes (relaxation), diverting attention, and identifying avoidant behaviours and short/long terms consequences of behaviour. Half of each group were supplied with sound stimulation through behind-the-ear broadband white noise generators for each ear, with volume controls for graded increases. Following treatment, greater improvements in tinnitus severity were reported for patients with hyperacusis compared to those without hyperacusis. Notably, hyperacusis was not measured after treatment in this study.
3.8. Tinnitus Retraining Therapy. Sixteen studies explored the use of TRT for patients with hyperacusis as a primary complaint [21-25] or a secondary complaint [26-33] or as part of a symptom set [34-36] (Table 2.).
Nine studies [24-29, 32, 34, 35] focused on a classic TRT protocol to elevate hyperacusis with/without tinnitus. These studies incorporated a component of counselling including educational training in which the Jastreboff neurophysiological model is described to explain treatment and demystify the patients' experience. Guidance is given about avoidance behaviour (e.g., use of earplugs, avoiding environment sounds, or avoiding quiet) and the application of desensitising sound and sound enrichment was discussed. The depth of counselling and sound components depends on the treatment category (0-4: presence of tinnitus, hearing loss, hyperacusis, or noise exposure) assigned; for categories 1-2, sound generators are recommended; for categories 3-4 aimed at hyperacusis, bilateral open-fitting sound generators are fitted with instructions to gradually increase the sound daily to be tolerable without difficulties. Sound enrichment techniques are also used, in which digitally produced nature sounds are slowly reintroduced [24-29, 32, 34, 35]. Eight of these studies reported improvements in hyperacusis [25, 27, 29, 32, 35], three of which reported increased LDLs [24, 28, 34] following treatment. Hazell et al.  reported that, after 2 years of treatment, LDLs were well within the normal range (>100 dB) in over 60% of patients. In a case series, Formby and Gold  found that individual patients were reporting "noticeable subjective improvement in sound tolerance," resolution of complaints of discomfort, and in one case "complete resolve of sound tolerance problems." In a case report, Hesse et al.  described the need for the patient to build up a good therapeutic relationship before starting the sound exposure and generator component of therapy. This led to hyperacusis only occurring on very rare occasions. Both Suchova  and Molini et al.  reported that only a small number of patients with hyperacusis showed improvement following TRT. Molini et al.  reported that only one patient in hyperacusis category 3 achieved therapeutic success (a decrease of 2 or less on the scale of symptoms, a Tinnitus Handicap Inventory Grade 1, and an awareness of tinnitus value of less than or equal to 10% of the patient's wakefulness). In contrast, Forti et al.  found that TRT led to patients reporting no differences in difficulties with activities (relaxation, concentration, sleep, social relations, and work) following the treatment.
Three studies evaluated the effectiveness of using sound generators alongside directive counselling with patients reporting a primary complaint of hyperacusis , tinnitus , or hearing loss . All three studies reported that LDLs had significantly improved over the course of treatment. In an RCT, Formby et al.  showed a clear pattern of LDLs initially increasing and then plateauing at 6 months after the onset of full treatment (counselling and noise generators). All three studies also reported greater treatment success and improvements of hyperacusis in patients who used noise generators in addition to directive counselling than those using part of the treatments (counselling alone, counselling and placebo noise generator, or noise generator only). In another RCT, Formby et al.  found that changes in judgements of uncomfortable loudness for the full treatment group after treatment averaged 15 dB-10 dB, compared to the changes of 5 dB or less in the other groups.
Gold et al.  investigated functional auditory changes demonstrated by increases in LDLs and DR during TRT for patients with tinnitus and hyperacusis. Following treatment, both LDLs and DR increased from the initial assessment whilst hearing threshold did not change significantly. The authors concluded that the DR can be increased following TRT. Patients self-reported an increase in quality of life and a decrease in the number of daily activities affected by tolerance problems. Similarly, Wolk and Seefeld  reported that regular use of maskers (set at hearing threshold and slowly increased) improved LDLs and DR and reduced severity of hyperacusis to "no longer a problem." Formby and Keaser  explored the sound therapy component of TRT and potential treatment benefits for tinnitus patients using hearing aids (HA) versus audiometrically matched or LDL-matched tinnitus patients with hyperacusis using noise generators. Increases in LDLs and DR at follow-up were observed for both the audiometrically matched and LDL-matched groups. In the HA versus audiometrically matched noise generator condition, changes in hearing thresholds between groups were nominal, but patients using noise generators showed significant increments in LDLs compared to the HA group. In the HA versus LDL-matched noise generator condition, the changes in LDLs at 1kHz were greater for the LDL-matched group than the HA group; differences were negligible at other frequencies.
In a case study of a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder reporting hyperacusis as a symptom, Westcott  reported that, following an initial treatment of antidepressants (a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor/a serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor) for sound intolerance attributed to anxiety and depression, a TRT desensitisation program was carried out to help increase tolerance to environmental sounds. The patient self-reported an improved ability to cope with loud sounds, reduced reaction to unexpected loud sounds, and the ability to actively pursue her own piano playing.
One case report followed some of the TRT principles without explicitly stating this method . Ruth and Hamill-Ruth  applied counselling with tinnitus habituation therapy (bilateral fitted in-the-ear-noise generators) to improve daily activities, relaxation, and mood monitoring in a patient experiencing both tinnitus and hyperacusis. In addition to therapy, the patient was prescribed Baclofen for pain and sleep disturbance. After one year, the patient no longer experienced tinnitus or hyperacusis and reported an improved ability to sleep and socialise.
3.9. Counselling Alone. Attri and Nagarkar  reported a case study using hyperacusis-focused directive counselling to educate the patient on the auditory system and mechanisms of hyperacusis (Table 2). Guidance and advice were given on avoiding silence, overprotection of ears, and use of background sounds to desensitise hyperacusis. The patient reported a reduction in HQ scores from 23 points (moderate) to 15 points (close to normal) and improved tolerance to sounds, with difficulties tending to occur only during depressive episodes.
3.10. Devices Alone. Eleven studies reported the effects of using different devices on patients with hyperacusis as a primary complaint or secondary complaint or as part of a symptom set (Table 3). Two studies [39, 40] reported "acoustic training" for hyperacusis which notably improved symptoms in the long term, with symptoms remaining in remission over a year later. These studies slightly differed in methodology. The seven "acoustic training" sessions (administered every 5 days) reported by Miani et al.  consisted of six to ten stimulations in which a narrowband noise was sent to an acoustic free field, before a 60 dB HL pure tone (other types of sounds were also used in later sessions) was sent through headphones for about 3 minutes followed by a pause of 3 minutes. The intensity of the sound stimulus and duration were increased in 5 dB HL steps (up to a total increase of 35 dB HL) and up to 5 minutes of exposure, until the last session, when the sound in the headphones reached 95 dB HL in all frequencies. High frequencies used in the sessions led to reports of discomfort by patients when listening via headphones, but not in the acoustic free environment. These sounds were not reflective of normal environmental sounds, so authors were not concerned. In contrast, Norena and Chery-Croze  used passive exposure to an enriched acoustic environment (EAE). Sounds used were pure tones (based on the cut-off frequency of hearing loss) presented in random order for the duration of 100 ms with pauses between of 100 ms. Participants listened to the EAE through headphones for 1-3 hours a day at a just audible level. Auditory sensitivity significantly decreased at all frequency bands, from 2 weeks onwards. The impact of hyperacusis on activities and daily functioning was reduced, with all participants reporting significant decrease in both MASH and HQ scores over the course of the treatment.
Three studies reported desensitisation programs using broadband tinnitus maskers [41, 42] and pink noise tape cassettes . To desensitise patients, sounds were presented in each ear through wearable tinnitus maskers or through headphones (for pink noise) and started at a threshold the patient could tolerate and gradually increased in loudness over the sessions. In the case series reported by Vernon , the patients wore ear plugs during the day and carried out the desensitisation program at night. All three studies reported improvements in hyperacusis, although some patients did not comply with the use of the tape cassettes as they were afraid to use them because they believed that it would aggravate their hyperacusis. One patient reported improved ability to manage life without hyperacusis limitations .
One RCT  evaluated the effectiveness of a continuous wave laser TinniTool versus a dummy laser device. A laser probe was inserted into a specifically designed headset which projects the laser beam (power output 5mW) onto the tympanic membrane though a 17-degree diverging lens (creating a spot size of 1 cm) for 20 minutes a day, resulting in an energy density of around 6 J at the membrane. The placebo dummy device, apart from activation of the laser beam, reproduced all aspects of laser therapy. Tinnitus patients in the laser therapy group reported decreased hyperacusis. Seven patients in the laser therapy group and eight patients in the placebo group reported LDLs lower than 80 dB at baseline; of these, LDLs improved in five patients in laser therapy group compared to two patients in placebo group following treatment.
Two studies [44, 45] reported the long term effects of cochlear implants (CI) treatment in patients with unilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. Mertens et al.  found that hyperacusis only significantly reduced for the single-sided deafness group and not the asymmetric hearing loss group. Significant differences were observed in HQ total and the attentional subscale scores between the CI-ON and the CIOFF condition for the single-sided deafness group. Ramos Macias et al.  reported that CI use resulted in improved sound tolerance for six out of seven patients, who showed a reduction in Sound Hypersensitivity Questionnaire scores . Only one patient showed decreased sound tolerance problems. Saglier et al.  investigated the impact of family history of hearing impairment on rehabilitation using HAs and reported that hyperacusis scores were more improved in patients without a family history following fitting of HAs than those with a family history.
One study  reported that 21 sessions using a tinnitus progressive phase-shift treatment device ("Phase-out TM"), which presented a sound that resembles the frequency and amplitude of patients' own tinnitus but shifts 6[degrees] every 30 seconds, did not significantly change scores on the HQ or audiometric data between a pure tone tinnitus group and a narrow band noise tinnitus group. All measurements remained unchanged after therapy.
One case study  reported that diazide and methylprednisolone improved unilateral hearing loss but did not diminish hyperacusis. Following fitting of a custommade binaural full-concha, unvented in-the-ear compression device (Micro Tech[R] Refuge-hyperacusic), the patient reported that the devices were very helpful and provided a level of protection that was at least as good as what he achieved with the plugs and muffs, but reported that he still could not carry out social activities (listening to music, attending concerts, restaurants, movies, and events, or hearing others when eating).
3.11. Pharmacological Therapy. Pharmacological therapy was reported in five case studies [50-54] where hyperacusis was part of a set of symptoms (Table 4). One case study  reports a patient placed on a diet to address metabolic factors, bisphosphonate and calcium, for otosclerosis. The patient reported feeling better until the treatment regime was discontinued, when symptoms of dizziness and hyperacusis returned. The patient was prescribed bisphosphonate risedronate and reported reduced complaints of symptoms and feeling best when the diet regime was followed. In another case study, Brookler  reported a patient prescribed metformin, risedronate (30 mg twice weekly), calcium, vitamin D, and sodium monofluorophosphate who reported worsening of hyperacusis on days when they took risedronate. Alternating the regime with etidronate (400 mg/day for 2 weeks) and risedronate (30 mg twice weekly for 4 weeks) did not improve hyperacusis but increasing risedronate intake to 30 mg twice weekly for 6 weeks and then for 11 weeks improved hyperacusis to be "almost gone." Gopal et al.  reported differences in LDLs between conditions in which the patient was unmedicated and medicated with fluvoxamine (50 mg/day) and fluoxetine (20 mg/day), with improved LDLs above 100 dB in the medicated condition. Lee et al.  reported that antihypertensives and gabapentin (600 mg/day) reduced the intensity of both tinnitus and hyperacusis after 1 month. Nields et al.  reported that although six weeks of intravenous ceftriaxone led to a remission of "all symptoms," excluding mild arthralgia and fatigue, hyperacusis subsequently worsened after treatment. Intravenous cefotaxim slightly diminished hyperacusis, but it remained an impediment to performing activities. Clonazepam led to a short-term lessening of hyperacusis symptoms but increased emotional lability. Following carbamazepine (blood level of 6 [micro]g/ml.), the patient reported that sound tolerance thresholds had increased, fear and irritability had lessened, and the kindling-like effects (sounds "adding up") had diminished so she was able to recover more quickly.
3.12. Surgery. Six studies reported results from patients electing to undergo surgery specifically for hyperacusis [56, 58, 60], hearing loss and hyperacusis , intracranial aneurysms , or Meniere's disease  (Table 4). In a cohort study, J. Gavilan and C. Gavilan  performed a middle fossa vestibular neurectomy, which includes ablation of the vestibulofacial anastomosis, and removal of part of the nerve. They reported that hyperacusis symptoms had lessened or were no longer a problem. Nikkar-Esfahani et al.  reported that successful occlusion (permeatal blocking) of the round window surgery in two patients led to an improvement of conductive hyperacusis symptoms but caused a mild exacerbation of conductive hearing loss. Khalil et al.  reported a case study of a patient with hyperacusis whose magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a large aneurysm. A Guglielmi detachable coil (GDC) embolization of the aneurysm led to resolution of hyperacusis. Dang et al.  present a case of a patient with hearing loss and hyperacusis caused by bilateral superior semicircular canal dehiscence and posterior semicircular canal dehiscence. Surgery involved a right-sided transmastoid approach and temporalis fascia plugs of each defect. Hyperacusis was assessed as resolved at three months' follow-up. The patient did report residual imbalance and right ear fullness, however. Two of the most recent studies [58, 60] reported that transcranial round window niche and oval window reinforcement surgery led to improved hyperacusis, with increased LDLs and reduced Hyperacusis Questionnaire scores (author-developed questionnaire adapted from the GUF ), but with no changes to hearing. One patient reported sustained improvements of hyperacusis and quality of life four years after surgery . Silverstein et al.  reported higher success with unilateral surgery than bilateral surgery.
3.13. Future Research Priorities Identified in the Literature. Various further research priorities were identified in the included records. Gabriels  urged audiologists to pool their patient information together in order to study the link between symptoms of hyperacusis combined with having a limited DR. Most authors suggest that larger studies (Tables 2-4) need to be conducted to verify the effectiveness of CBT , TRT [28, 32], and different surgical treatments [56, 58, 60]. Studies evaluating the treatment benefit of counselling combined with alternative sound therapies (e.g., enriched acoustic therapy ) compared to those usually used in TRT should be conducted . Larger studies focused on testing the effect of maskers/noise generators and HAs specifically for hyperacusis as a primary complaint are indicated [20, 21, 42]. Other possible treatments for hyperacusis suggested for further research include laser therapy , desensitisation techniques , and further investigation of the pharmaceutical treatments for certain subgroups of hyperacusis specifically when hyperacusis is induced by Lyme disease  or when cooccurring with depression . Berry et al.  also highlight the importance of developing patient-based assessments for hyperacusis.
This scoping review collated clinical research focused on management strategies used for hyperacusis, the definitions of hyperacusis, tools used for assessment and evaluation, and future research priorities. We found that more than half of the research currently reported was based on individual case studies and therefore cannot be generalised. In addition to this, management strategies were typically evaluated in patients reporting hyperacusis as a secondary complaint or as part of a symptom set, and as such the outcomes reported only provided an indication of effectiveness for hyperacusis. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to identify effective management strategies. These findings highlight an urgent need for controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of these management strategies for patients experiencing hyperacusis.
The definitions characterised by researchers had common terminology, with descriptions mainly differing in the emphasis placed on the direction of the sound tolerance, either reduction in tolerance or oversensitivity. The underlying theme reflected how the sound tolerance in patients with hyperacusis is different from "normal." However, the appropriateness of "hypersensitivity" as a term for problems with sound tolerance has been questioned. Tyler et al.  argued that hypersensitivity reflects hearing thresholds that are better than normal and that hyperacusis is not usually associated with this and as such recommended avoiding using this terminology. The reference to "abnormal" could be upsetting to patients and lead to negative reactions to the experience. Although some studies referred to emotional reactions, such as distress and discomfort, and physical reactions of pain as characteristics of hyperacusis within their working definitions, the four distinct definitions (loudness, annoyance, fear, and pain) used in a recent narrative review  of hyperacusis were not readily used in the literature. The framework suggested by Tyler et al.  may be indicative of characteristics of hyperacusis rather than defining discrete subtypes that can be unambiguously differentiated. Consequently, there is a need for consensus through a systematic process involving professionals and patients to define hyperacusis and inform standards for assessment criteria.
To assess hyperacusis, most studies relied on self-report, with only some studies reporting use of a tool (LDLs, the HQ, or the TRT interview) to establish severity. Across the board, no consistent diagnostic tools or criteria were used, making it virtually impossible for comparisons across study populations. There is a need for established diagnostic criteria for hyperacusis and self-report measures appropriate for the population which have been evaluated for this purpose. The same can be said for outcome measures. The majority of studies did not report the outcome measures used. For case reports, the reliance was on clinical interview after treatment, which can be meaningful as the findings directly relate to patient experience. However, with the restricted information reported, we can only have limited confidence in the findings and the possible avenues for future research. Otherwise, a variety of outcome measures were reported, the most popular of which were LDLs and the HQ. Neither has been fully evaluated as outcome measure and in terms of the HQ was not designed to be used as an outcome measure. The three response options only provide coarsegrained categorical units of measurement and as such will not reliably detect small but potentially meaningful changes in hyperacusis [73, 74]. For LDLs, variability in the type of sounds used and the instructions given to patients' makes comparisons across studies relatively meaningless. There is an apparent need for clear guidance and consensus on LDLs use as outcome measures and for the development of self-report questionnaire specifically aimed at being responsive to changes in the impact of hyperacusis.
The most commonly reported management strategy was TRT, and most studies indicated that the treatment was beneficial to patients with hyperacusis. Complex interventions that include several interacting components require systematic evaluations . Most included records reported here lacked rigorous methodology, raising concerns about the validity of the findings. Having said this, the RCTs using patients with a primary complaint  or secondary complaint of hyperacusis  did provide empirical evidence for the combination of the counselling and sound therapy components (full treatment) being of more benefit than the single components and as such highlighting an important principle of TRT. For the most part, there was a lack of rigor in reporting what was done in the name of TRT, particularly details of the counselling components used throughout the sessions or any differences when treating tinnitus and hyperacusis.
Despite the earliest research reported being published in the 1980s, there is an absence of research evidence on treatments directly aimed at treating hyperacusis. Most studies reported here were not focused on hyperacusis as the primary reason for management. This was especially true for the pharmacological treatments, all of which reported hyperacusis as part of a set of symptoms and were case studies; the effects observed may not be representative of the general hyperacusis population. The drugs reported were in general aimed at alleviating other symptoms and the reduction of hyperacusis may have been a byproduct of the reduction in those symptoms. Without the appropriate population, sample size, and systematic trial methodology, no strong conclusions can be reached.
Overall, only five of the 43 studies used a RCT design [18, 20, 21, 30, 47], two of which were solely aimed at patients experiencing hyperacusis [18, 21]. Whilst there are challenges in utilising a placebo control in interventions that involve sound therapy and/or counselling, waiting list controls designs could be implemented, as could a standard care versus specialist care design. The use of more robust trial designs in future hyperacusis studies would increase the quality and value of the evidence and support the development of optimised treatments.
Clear themes were identified from the definitions of hyperacusis reported, with an underlying theme that highlights the difference in sound tolerance from what is considered "normal." In order to enable diagnosis and assessment, there needs to be an agreement on the definition including the perspectives of patients with lived experience of hyperacusis. The majority of management strategies were evaluated in patients reporting hyperacusis as a secondary complaint or as part of a symptom set and as such the outcomes only highlight potential benefits and no strong conclusions can be made. Authors agree that research should prioritise evaluating interventions and management strategies on patients with hyperacusis as a primary complaint, in particular TRT, sound therapy interventions, and pharmacological interventions. Importantly, to establish the benefits within this population, there is a need for controlled trials and appropriate patient-based assessments specifically for measuring hyperacusis. To date, only two controlled trials primarily aimed at hyperacusis have been conducted and as yet there are no registered ongoing or planned trials for hyperacusis as a primary complaint. With such an open field, it is essential that these opportunities for new research highlighted here lead to new controlled trials that will have a greater impact on the field.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This report is independent research by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre Funding Scheme.
 D. M. Baguley and D. J. McFerran, "Hyperacusis and disorders ofloudness perception," Textbook of Tinnitus, pp. 13-23, 2011.
 D. McFerran, "Misophonia and Phonophobia," in Tinnitus Clin Res Perspect, D. M. Baguley and M. Fagelson, Eds., pp. 245-260, Plural Publishing Inc, San Diego, 2016.
 S. Kumar, O. Tansley-Hancock, W. Sedley et al., "The Brain Basis for Misophonia," Current Biology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 527-533, 2017.
 S. N. Rosing, J. H. Schmidt, N. Wedderkopp, and D. M. Baguley, "Prevalence of tinnitus and hyperacusis in children and adolescents: a systematic review," BMJ Open, vol. 6, no. 6, Article ID e010596, 2016.
 A. J. Hall, R. Humphriss, D. M. Baguley, M. Parker, and C. D. Steer, "Prevalence and risk factors for reduced sound tolerance (hyperacusis) in children," International Journal of Audiology, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 135-141, 2016.
 G. Andersson, N. Lindvall, T. Hursti, and P. Carlbring, "Hypersensitivity to sound (hyperacusis): a prevalence study conducted via the internet and post," International Journal of Audiology, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 545-554, 2002.
 J. Paulin, L. Andersson, and S. Nordin, "Characteristics of hyperacusis in the general population," Noise and Health, vol. 18, no. 83, pp. 178-184, 2016.
 M. Anari, A. Axelsson, A. Eliasson, and L. Magnusson, "Hypersensitivity to sound--questionnaire data, audiometry and classification," Scandinavian Audiology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 219-230, 1999.
 P. J. Jastreboff and M. M. Jastreboff, "Tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) as a method for treatment of tinnitus and hyperacusis patients," Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 162-177, 2000.
 J. Sheldrake, P. U. Diehl, and R. Schaette, "Audiometric characteristics of hyperacusis patients," Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 6, Article ID 00105, 2015.
 M. Knipper, P. Van Dijk, I. Nunes, L. RUttiger, and U. Zimmermann, "Advances in the neurobiology of hearing disorders: recent developments regarding the basis of tinnitus and hyperacusis," Progress in Neurobiology, vol. 111, pp. 17-33, 2013.
 R. S. Tyler, M. Pienkowski, E. R. Roncancio et al., "A review of hyperacusis and future directions: part I. Definitions and manifestations," American Journal of Audiology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 402-419, 2014.
 H. Aazh, D. McFerran, R. Salvi, D. Prasher, M. Jastreboff, and P. Jastreboff, "Insights from the first international conference on hyperacusis: causes, evaluation, diagnosis and treatment," Noise and Health, vol. 16, no. 69, pp. 123-126, 2014.
 P. Craig, P. Dieppe, S. Macintyre, S. Mitchie, I. Nazareth, and M. Petticrew, "Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance," British Medical Journal, vol. 337, Article ID a1655, 2008.
 H. Arksey and L. O'Malley, "Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework," International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19-32, 2005.
 M. D. J. Peters, C. M. Godfrey, H. Khalil, P. McInerney, D. Parker, and C. B. Soares, "Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews," International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 141-146, 2015.
 E. Aromataris and D. Riitano, "Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence," American Journal of Nursing, vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 49-56, 2014.
 L. Juris, G. Andersson, H. C. Larsen, and L. Ekselius, "Cognitive behaviour therapy for hyperacusis: a randomized controlled trial," Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 30-37, 2014.
 A. B. Fioretti, T. Varakliotis, O. Poli, M. Cantagallo, and A. Eibenstein, "Severe hyperacusis, photophobia, and skin hypersensitivity," Case Reports in Otolaryngology, vol. 2016, pp. 1-5, 2016.
 W. Hiller and C. Haerkotter, "Does sound stimulation have additive effects on cognitive-behavioral treatment of chronic tinnitus?" Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 595-612, 2005.
 C. Formby, M. Hawley, L. Sherlock et al., "Intervention for restricted dynamic range and reduced sound tolerance," The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 3717-3717, 2008.
 S. Gold, E. Frederick, and C. Formby, "Shifts in dynamic range for hyperacusis patients reveiving tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT)," in Sixth Int Tinnitus Semin, J. Hazell, Ed., pp. 297-301, Cambridge, UK, 2002.
 C. Wolk and B. Seefeld, "The effects of managing hyperacusis with maskers (noise generators)," in Proc Sixth Int Tinnitus Semin, J. Hazell, Ed., pp. 512-514, Cambridge, UK, 2002.
 J. Hazell, J. Sheldrake, and R. Graham, "Decreased sound tolerance: predisposing factors, triggers and outcomes after TRT," in Seventh Int Tinntius Semin, pp. 255-261, 2002.
 P. J. Jastreboff and M. M. Jastreboff, "Treatments for decreased sound tolerance (hyperacusis and misophonia)," Seminars in Hearing, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 105-120, 2014.
 S. Forti, S. Costanzo, A. Crocetti, L. Pignataro, L. Del Bo, and U. Ambrosetti, "Are results of tinnitus retraining therapy maintained over time? 18-Month follow-up after completion of therapy," Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 286-289, 2009.
 E. Molini, M. Faralli, C. Calenti, G. Ricci, F. Longari, and A. Frenguelli, "Personal experience with tinnitus retraining therapy," European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 267, no. 1, pp. 51-56, 2010.
 J. A. Berry, S. L. Gold, E. A. Frederick, W. C. Gray, and H. Staecker, "Patient-based outcomes in patients with primary tinnitus undergoing tinnitus retraining therapy," Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, vol. 128, no. 10, pp. 1153-1157, 2002.
 L. Suchova, "Tinnitus retraining therapy-the experiences in Slovakia.," Bratislavske lekarske listy, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 79-82, 2005.
 C. Formby, M. L. Hawley, L. P. Sherlock et al., "A sound therapy-based intervention to expand the auditory dynamic range for loudness among persons with sensorineural hearing losses: A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial," Seminars in Hearing, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 77-110, 2015.
 C. McKinney, J. Hazell, and R. Graham, "Changes in loudness discomfprt level and sensitivity to environmental sound," in Proc Sixth Int Tinnitus Semin, J. Hazell, Ed., pp. 499-501, Cambridge, UK, 2002.
 G. Bartnik, A. Fabijanska, and M. Rogowski, "Experiences in the treatment of patients with tinnitus and/or hyperacusis using the habituation method," Scandinavian Audiology, Supplement, vol. 30, no. 52, pp. 187-190, 2001.
 C. Formby and M. L. Keaser, "Secondary treatment benefits achieved by hearing-impaired tinnitus patients using aided environmental sound therapy for tinnitus retraining therapy: Comparisons with matched groups of tinnitus patients using noise generators for sound therapy," Seminars in Hearing, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 246-294, 2007.
 C. Formby and S. L. Gold, "Modification of loudness discomfort level: Evidence for adaptive chronic auditory gain and its clinical relevance," Seminars in Hearing, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 21-34, 2002.
 G. Hesse, A. Laubert, H. Schaaf, and M. Almeling, "Integrative psychosomatic and otologic models in the therapy of chronic tinnitus," in Trends Psychother Res Nova Science Publishers Inc, M. E. Abelian, Ed., pp. 53-70, 2006.
 M. Westcott, Case study: management of hyperacusis associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, Seventh Int Tinntius Semin, 2002.
 R. A. Ruth and R. Hamill-Ruth, "A multidisciplinary approach to management of Tinnitus and hyperacusis," Hearing Journal, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 26-32, 2001.
 D. Attri and A. N. Nagarkar, "Resolution of hyperacusis associated with depression, following lithium administration and directive counselling," Journal of Laryngology and Otology, vol. 124, no. 8, pp. 919-921, 2010.
 A. J. Norena and S. Chery-Croze, "Enriched acoustic environment rescales auditory sensitivity," NeuroReport, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1251-1255, 2007.
 C. Miani, P. Passon, A. M. Bergamin Bracale, A. Barotti, and N. Panzolli, "Treatment of hyperacusis in Williams syndrome with bilateral conductive hearing loss," European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 258, no. 7, pp. 341-344, 2001.
 J. A. Vernon, "Pathophysiology of tinnitus: a special case--hyperacusis and a proposed treatment," American Journal of Otology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 201-202, 1987.
 P. Gabriels, "Hyperacusis--can we help?" Aust J Audiol, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1-4, 1993.
 J. Vernon and L. Press, "Treatment for hyperacusis," in Tinnitus: Treatment and Relief, J. Vernon, Ed., pp. 223-227, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1998.
 A. Ramos Macias, J. C. Falcon Gonzalez, M. Manrique et al., "Cochlear implants as a treatment option for unilateral hearing loss, severe tinnitus and hyperacusis," Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 20, pp. 60-66, 2015.
 G. Mertens, M. De Bodt, and P. Van de Heyning, "Cochlear implantation as a long-term treatment for ipsilateral incapacitating tinnitus in subjects with unilateral hearing loss up to 10 years," Hearing Research, vol. 331, pp. 1-6, 2016.
 C. Saglier, F. Perez-Diaz, L. Collet, and R. Jouvent, "The impact of a family history hearing impairement on rehabilative intervention: a one year follow up," in Eff Genet Heaing Impair Fam, D. Stephens and L. Jones, Eds., pp. 135-144, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 2006.
 R. Teggi, C. Bellini, L. O. Piccioni, F. Palonta, and M. Bussi, "Transmeatal low-level laser therapy for chronic tinnitus with cochlear dysfunction," Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 115-120, 2009.
 O. Meeus, K. Heyndrickx, P. Lambrechts, D. De Ridder, and P. Van De Heyning, "Phase-shift treatment for tinnitus of cochlear origin," European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 267, no. 6, pp. 881-888, 2010.
 M. Valente, J. Goebel, D. Duddy, B. Sinks, and J. Peterein, "Evaluation and treatment of severe hyperacusis," J Am Acad Audiol, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 295-299, 2000.
 J. A. Nields, B. A. Fallon, and P. J. Jastreboff, "Carbamazepine in the treatment of Lyme disease-induced hyperacusis," Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 97-99, 1999.
 K. Gopal, D. M. Daly, R. G. Daniloff, and L. Pennartz, "Effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on auditory processing," The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 1346-1347, 1999.
 K. H. Brookler, "Electronystagmography in a woman with aural fullness, hyperacusis, and dizziness," Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 165-166, 2003.
 E. Lee, H.-Y. Sohn, M. Kwon, and J. S. Kim, "Contralateral hyperacusis in unilateral pontine hemorrhage.," Neurology, vol. 70, no. 24, pp. 2413-2415, 2008.
 K. H. Brookler, "Monaural diplacusis with tinnitus, aural fullness, hyperacusis, and sensorineural hearing loss," Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 772-774, 2009.
 S. Khalil, L. Ogunyemi, and J. Osborne, "Middle cerebral artery aneurysm presenting as isolated hyperacusis," Journal of Laryngology and Otology, vol. 116, no. 5, pp. 376-378, 2002.
 A. Nikkar-Esfahani, D. Whelan, and A. Banerjee, "Occlusion of the round window: A novel way to treat hyperacusis symptoms in superior semicircular canal dehiscence syndrome," Journal of Laryngology and Otology, vol. 127, no. 7, pp. 705-707, 2013.
 P. T. Dang, T. A. Kennedy, and S. P. Gubbels, "Simultaneous, unilateral plugging of superior and posterior semicircular canal dehiscences to treat debilitating hyperacusis," Journal of Laryngology and Otology, vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 174-178, 2014.
 H. Silverstein, Y.-H. E. Wu, and S. Hagan, "Round and oval window reinforcement for the treatment of hyperacusis," American Journal of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Medicine and Surgery, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 158-162, 2015.
 J. Gavilan and C. Gavilan, "Middle fossa vestibular neurectomy: long-term results," Archives of Otolaryngology, vol. 110, no. 12, pp. 785-787, 1984.
 H. Silverstein, R. Ojo, J. Daugherty, R. Nazarian, and J. Wazen, "Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of hyperacusis," Otology and Neurotology, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1482-1488, 2016.
 P. Jastreboff, "Clinical implication of the neurophysiological model of tinnitus," in Proc 5th Int Tinnitus Semin Portland, G. Reich and J. Vernon, Eds., pp. 500-507,1995.
 M. Nelting, N. K. Rienhoff, G. Hesse, and U. Lamparter, "The assessment of subjective distress related to hyperacusis with a self-rating questionnaire on hypersensitivity to sound," Laryngo- Rhino- Otologie, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 327-334, 2002.
 S. Khalfa, S. Dubal, E. Veuillet, F. Perez-Diaz, R. Jouvent, and L. Collet, "Psychometric normalization of a hyperacusis questionnaire," ORL, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 436-442, 2002.
 M. Nelting and N. Finlayson, GUF-Gerauschuberempfindlichkeits-Fragebogen, Gottingen, Hogrefe, Germany, 2004.
 P. J. Jastreboff and J. W. Hazell, Tinnitus Retraining Therapy: Implementing the Neurophysiological Model, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004.
 W. Hiller and G. Goebel, "A psychometric study of complaints in chronic tinnitus," Journal of Psychosomatic Research, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 337-348, 1992.
 R. Dauman and F. Bouscau-Faure, "Assessment and amelioration of hyperacusis in tinnitus patients," Acta OtoLaryngologica, vol. 125, no. 5, pp. 503-509, 2005.
 K. Fackrell, C. Fearnley, D. J. Hoare, and M. Sereda, "Hyperacusis questionnaire as a tool for measuring hypersensitivity to sound in a tinnitus research population," BioMed Research International, vol. 2015, Article ID 290425,12 pages, 2015.
 B. Goldstein and A. Shulman, "Tinnitus-hyperacusis and the loudness discomfort level test-a preliminary report," Int Tinnitus J, vol. 2, pp. 83-89, 1996.
 L. P. Sherlock and C. Formby, "Estimates of loudness, loudness discomfort, and the auditory dynamic range: Normative estimates, comparison of procedures, and test-retest reliability," Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 85-100, 2005.
 S. P. Bornstcin and F. E. Musick, "Loudness Discomfort Level and Reliability As A Function of Instructional Set," Scandinavian Audiology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 125-131, 1993.
 T. L. Zaugg, E. J. Thielman, S. Griest, and J. A. Henry, "Subjective reports of trouble tolerating sound in daily life versus loudness discomfort levels," American Journal of Audiology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 359-363, 2016.
 M. W. Lipsey and S. M. Hurley, "Design sensitivity: statistical power for applied experimental research," SAGE Handb Appl Soc Res methods, pp. 44-76, 2008.
 B. Kirshner and G. Guyatt, "A methodological framework for assessing health indices," Journal of Chronic Diseases, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 27-36, 1985.
Kathryn Fackrell, (1,2) Iskra Potgieter, (1) Giriraj S. Shekhawat, (3,4) David M. Baguley, (1,2) Magdalena Sereda, (1,2) and Derek J. Hoare (1,2)
(1) NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Ropewalk House, Nottingham, UK
(2) Otology and Hearing Group, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
(3) Health Systems and Audiology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
(4) Tinnitus Research Initiative, Regensburg, Germany
Correspondence should be addressed to Kathryn Fackrell; email@example.com
Received 31 May 2017; Accepted 16 August 2017; Published 9 October 2017
Academic Editor: Alberto Raggi
Caption: Figure 1: Flow chart of stages of study selection process.
Table 1: Search term strategies for hyperacusis interventions and outcome measures. CENTRAL = Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CINAHL = Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; ISRCTN = International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number; ICTRP = the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Search terms Search engine Hyperacus* AND [assess* OR Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Scopus, measure* OR test* OR outcom* Web of Science OR Diagnos* OR defin* OR treat* OR manag* OR therap* OR interv* Hyperacus* AND [(assess* OR Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, measure* OR test* OR diagnos* CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus OR defin OR outcom* OR therap* OR interv* OR treat* OR manag*)] Hyperacus* Cochrane ENT Disorders Group Trials Register Hyperacusis ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP Hyperacusis AND [assessment OR Google Scholar measurement OR test OR Outcome OR diagnosis OR definition OR treatment OR Therapy OR intervention] Table 2: Charting population and outcome data according to management strategy: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Tinnitus Retraining Therapy, and Counselling. RCT = Randomised Controlled Trial; NRCT = Nonrandomised Controlled Trial; Retro = retrospective study; LDLs = Loudness Discomfort Levels; DR = Dynamic Range; HQ = Hyperacusis Questionnaire; TRT = Tinnitus Retraining Therapy; VAS = Visual Analogue Scale; HADS = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; TSK = Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia; QOLI = Quality of Life Inventory; TQ = Tinnitus Questionnaire. Intervention Ref Study Sample Hyperacusis design size complaint CBT Juris et al. RCT 60 Primary  CBT and Fioretti et Case 1 Primary pharma al.  report CBT and Hiller and RCT 136 Secondary noise Haerkotter generators  TRT Formby et RCT 40 Primary al.  TRT Gold et al. NRCT 130 (ears) Primary  TRT Wolk and NRCT 122 Primary Seefeld  TRT Hazell et Retro 187 Primary al.  TRT P.J. Case series 201 (56 hy) Primary/ Jastreboff secondary and M. M. Jastreboff  TRT Forti et al. Case series 40 (Shy) Secondary  TRT Molini et Case series 81 Secondary al.  TRT Berry et al. Cohort 32 Secondary  TRT Suchova Cohort 331 Secondary  TRT Formby et RCT 36 Secondary al.  TRT McKinney NRCT 182 Secondary et al.  TRT Bartnik et Retro 100 (40 hy) Secondary al.  TRT Formby Retro 51 (18 hy) Secondary and Keaser  TRT Formby Case series 5 Within and Gold symptom set  TRT Hesse et al. Case 1 Within  report symptom set TRT and Wes tcot t Case 1 Within pharma  report symptom set Counselling Ruth and Case 1 Within and tinnitus Hamill- report symptom set habituation Ruth therapy  Directive Attri and 1 Primary counselling Nagarkar  Intervention Aimed at Outcome measures treating hy Primary Secondary CBT Yes LDLs HQ; HADS; TSK; QOLI CBT and Yes HQ LDLs, tonal pharma audiometry CBT and No Not stated, TQ Not stated noise generators TRT Yes LDLs Not stated TRT Yes LDLs Effect of hyperacusis on the patients quality of life and daily activities questions TRT Yes LDLs, DR, Not specified Baltimore Questionnaire, VAS TRT Yes LDLs, TRT Not specified questionnaire TRT Yes LDLs (not Not specified reported) TRT No Self-report Not specified TRT No TRT interview Not specified TRT No Subjective LDLs presence or absence of hyperacusis TRT No Self-report Not stated TRT No LDLs for pure Uncomfortably tone, speech, loudness and white judgements noise TRT No LDLs Not specified TRT No Author- Not specified developed questionnaire TRT No Author- Not specified developed questionnaire TRT No LDLs Not specified TRT Yes Self-report Not stated TRT and No Self-report LDLs (after pharma treatment only) Counselling No Self-report Not stated and tinnitus habituation therapy Directive Yes Hyperacusis LDLs, counselling test Hamilton psychiatric rating scale Intervention Main findings CBT There were significant group effects for the treatment group (CBT) on all secondary outcome measures except for the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. There were both large significant between-group (treatment versus waiting list) and within-group effects for the CBT group on hyperacusis severity as measured by the HQ. LDLs were significantly reduced after treatment in CBT group compared to waiting list group for both ears. CBT and The patient reported improved mood and pharma tolerance to sound with HQ scores below cut-off following second treatment. LDLs showed some improvement but were still below normal sound tolerance. CBT and At the 6-month follow-up, tinnitus noise education was shown to be more favourable. generators Improvements on TQ scores were observed for hyperacusis patients compared to all patients that completed the sessions. In the CBT group, similar results were shown with hyperacusis patients reporting improvements on TQ. More patients with hyperacusis than without were classified as responders for tinnitus education and CBT. LDLs improved over the course of the intervention. These improvements were generally apparent within the first 4 months of the intervention, plateauing at around 6 months after the onset of full treatment (counselling and noise generators). TRT Comfortable level speech scores improved from 50% to 80% after 6 months of full treatment. Treatment success rate was highest for the full treatment when compared to any of the partial treatments (counselling and placebo noise generator, noise generator only) or placebo noise generator group. TRT The patients self-reported an improved quality of life, with ability to comfortably participate in an increased number of activities after treatment. LDLs were significantly improved, at or near normal LDL thresholds for each frequency after treatment. Significant increases in DR at all test frequencies were also observed following treatment. TRT Patients reported that severity of hyperacusis was improved from a big problem to no longer a problem on the analogue scale. Regularly wearing maskers was associated with improved LDLs and DR, on average after treatment, indicating improved acceptance of ambient noise. TRT The number of life factors affected by hyperacusis was significantly reduced between the first and third visit after treatment. LDLs were significantly increased between each visit, with the majority of improvements experienced between the first and second visit. LDLs reached normal levels in 60% of patients by the fourth visit. LDL results were not presented. 56 patients reported hyperacusis (with or without misophonia); of these, 45 patients (80%) TRT showed significant improvement after treatment. Improvement was higher for the hyperacusis and concurrent misophonia group (33/39) than hyperacusis alone patients (13/17). TRT No differences in difficulties with activities (relaxation, concentration, sleep, social relations, and work) were found in patients with hyperacusis following treatment. 64 patients (79%) from categories 0 and 4 improved and achieved therapeutic success at the end of 18 months based on a decrease TRT in symptom scale score of 2 or less (focused on tinnitus). Only nine out of the ten achieved therapeutic success in category 3. One patient (out of 1) in category IV improved. TRT In the nine patients that presented with hyperacusis and tinnitus, LDLs were significantly improved following treatment. TRT Only 8 patients of 53 patients with hyperacusis showed an improvement in hyperacusis. All treatment groups showed improvements of LDLs (10 dB or more at two consecutive follow-ups). LDLs and loudness judgments in the full treatment group (counselling and sound therapy with binaural sound generators) were consistently greater TRT (averaged 15 and 10 dB) than those measured for the other groups ((2) counselling and placebo sound generators, (3) binaural sound generators only, and (4) placebo sound generators). 82% of individuals were classified as successfully treated following full treatment, 50% following the neutral control treatment, and 25% and 40% following partial treatment. TRT Incidence of hyperacusis in the treatment group was significantly lower and LDLs were significantly increased after 12 months. Improved LDLs were greater for those patients who used noise generators in addition to directive counselling or amplification. LDLs of patients who complained of specific sounds as being uncomfortable were not significantly different from the rest of the treatment group. TRT In category III, 55% of hyperacusis patients showed improvement (hyperacusis present, no prolonged noise exposure, and irrelevant or significant subjective hearing loss) and 60% in category IV (hyperacusis present, prolonged noise exposure, and irrelevant or significant subjective hearing loss) No significant treatment changes for the TRT audiometric thresholds. LDLs were significantly increased at each frequency following treatment. LDLs were significantly increased after treatment in the audiometrically matched hyperacusis noise generator treatment group compared to the hearing aid treatment group. LDLs between Hearing aid group and LDL-matched hyperacusis noise generator treatment groups for the 1000-Hz condition were significantly different. TRT In all five cases, LDLs were increased at 6 months, exceeding normal tolerance levels after a year of treatment. In one case, LDLs were improved as much as 25 dB after a 3-week period. Self-reported noticeable improvement in sound tolerance and complaints of discomfort to loud sounds had resolved. TRT The patient self-reporting hyperacusis rarely occurred ater successful treatment. No LDLs were measured at the beginning of treatment. LDLs were markedly lower than normal levels (>100 dB) after desensitisation TRT and treatment. Despite this, the patient pharma self-reported that all sounds had become more tolerable, with an improved ability to tolerate environmental sound and to cope with loud voices and reduced reactions to impact of sound. Counselling The patient no longer experienced severe and tinnitus tinnitus or hyperacusis and reported habituation improved pain symptoms and ability to therapy sleep and socialise one year after treatment. Directive The patient reported less difficulty with counselling sounds. An improvement in hyperacusis test scores and LDLs indicating close to normal sound tolerance. The patient also self-reported sufering less depression and difficulty with sounds only occuring during depressive episodes. Table 3: Charting population and outcome data according to management strategy: devices. RCT = Randomised Controlled Trial; NRCT = Nonrandomised Controlled Trial. Retro = retrospective study; LDLs = Loudness Discomfort Levels; LGOB = loudness growth in one-half octave band; MCL = Most Comfortable Loudness; HQ = Hyperacusis Questionnaire; SHQ = Sound Hypersensitivity Questionnaire; MASH = Multiple Activities Scale for Hyperacusis. Study Sample Intervention Ref design size Acoustic Norena and Cohort 8 training Chery-Croze  Acoustic Miani et al. Case 1 training  report Desensitisation Case Case 3 program with report report tinnitus maskers Desensitisation Gabriels  Case series 2 program with tinnitus maskers Desensitisation Hudson  Case series 20 program with tinnitus maskers Cochlear Ramos Cohort 16 implant Macias et al.  Cochlear Mertens et al. Retro 23 implant  Cochlear Saglier et al. Cohort 177 implant  Wave laser Teggi et al . RCT TinniTool  54 Phase-shit Meeus et al. NRCT 21 treatment device  Suppression Valente et al . Case 1 device and  report pharma Pharmacological Nields et al. Case report  Pharmacological Gopal et al. Case report 1  Pharmacological Brookler  Case report 1 Pharmacological Lee et al.  Case report 1 Surgery Brookler  Case report 1 Surgery Khalil et al. Case report 1  Surgery Nikkar- Case report 2 Esfahani et al.  Surgery Dang et al. Case report 1  Surgery Silverstein et Case series 2 al.  Surgery J. Gavilan Cohort 59 and C. Gavilan  Surgery Silverstein et Cohort 6 al.  Hyperacusis Aimed at Intervention complaint treating hy Acoustic Primary Yes training Acoustic Within symptom Yes training set Desensitisation Primary Yes program with tinnitus maskers Desensitisation Primary Yes program with tinnitus maskers Desensitisation Primary Yes program with tinnitus maskers Cochlear Within symptom No implant set Cochlear Within symptom No implant set Cochlear Secondary No implant Wave laser Within symptom No TinniTool set Phase-shit Secondary Yes treatment device Suppression Within symptom Yes device and set pharma Pharmacological Within No symptom set Pharmacological Within No symptom set Pharmacological Within No symptom set Pharmacological Within No symptom set Surgery Within No Symptom set Surgery Primary No Surgery Primary Yes Surgery Primary Yes Surgery Within Yes Symptom set Surgery Within No Symptom set Surgery Primary Yes Outcome measures Intervention Primary Secondary Acoustic MASH, HQ, LDLs training LGOB Acoustic Discomfort Not specified training levels Desensitisation Self-report Not stated program with tinnitus maskers Desensitisation MCLs and program with LDLs tinnitus maskers Desensitisation Self-report program with tinnitus maskers Cochlear SHQ Not specified implant Cochlear HQ Not specified implant Cochlear HQ Not specified implant Wave laser HQ Not specified TinniTool Phase-shit HQ Not specified treatment device Suppression Self--report Not stated device and pharma Pharmacological Self-report Not stated Pharmacological (1) pure-tone threshold testing (250-8000Hz), (2) impedance testing (tympanograms and acoustic relex thresholds), (3) speech audiometry (speech threshold, word recognition score), (4) click evoked ABR testing, (5) transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) testing, (6) uncomfortable loudness level (LDL) testing, (7) a screening test for central auditory processing disorders (SCAN-A testing), and (8) blood serum serotonin level Pharmacological Self-report Not stated Pharmacological Self-report Not stated Surgery Self-report Not stated Surgery Self-report Not stated Surgery Self-report Not stated Surgery Self-report Not stated Surgery HQ LDLs (only postop data) Surgery Self-report Not stated Surgery Hyperacusis Not specified Question- naire adapted from GUF and LDLs Intervention Acoustic Main findings training All participants reported a significant decrease in both MASH and HQ scores over the course of the treatment. Following the enriched acoustic environment treatment, auditory sensitivity significantly decreased at all frequency bands and all loudness categories (sot to too loud). he treatment produced notable improvement in the symptoms. No discomfort levels were registered in a free Acoustic acoustic environment; discomfort levels training were only observed with headphones at high frequencies that are not normally present in environmental noises. Clinical situation remained stable after 1 year. One patient was able to travel daily without ear protectors after 2 years of treatment. Another patient self-reported an Desensitisation improvement in condition after 3 months. program with Another reported improvement of at least tinnitus maskers 50% after 6 months of treatment. he patient self-reported noticeable improvements in hyperacusis with improved Desensitisation ability to manage life without the limitations program with associated with hyperacusis. LDLs and tinnitus maskers MCLs improved after four months. The patient reported ear plugs as being considerably beneficial. Patients self-reported improvements in Desensitisation hyperacusis after using tape. Some were program with afraid to use them. tinnitus maskers Cochlear Cochlear implant surgery resulted in implant improved sound intolerance, with a reduction in SHQ score for six patients (out of 7). Cochlear Cochlear implants were found to implant significantly reduce hyperacusis for the single-sided deafness group, with significant differences observed in HQ total and attentional subscale scores between the cochlear implant ON and the cochlear implant OFF condition. Cochlear Hyperacusis scores prior to fitting hardly implant differed between patients without a family history of hearing impairment and patients with family history. At 6 months after hearing aid fitting, patients without family history reported lower hyperacusis scores than those with a family history. Laser therapy led to a decrease in hyperacusis severity. LDLs for five patients (out of 7) improved in sot laser group, Wave las er whilst only two patients in the dummy TinniTool control group showed LDLs of more than 80 dB. Four patients presenting hyperacusis in the sot laser group also suffered from migraine compared to only 2 in the dummy group. Phase-shit No significant differences were found on treatment device hyperacusis questionnaire or audiometric data between pure tone tinnitus group and narrow band noise tinnitus group. he patient reported that the Micro Tech Refuge-hyperacusic hearing instruments are very helpful and provided a level of protection that was at least as good as what Suppression he achieved with the plugs and mufs. The device and patient still reported an inability to listen to pharma music, attend concerts, restaurants, movies, and events, or hear others when eating. Pharmacological Intravenous cetriaxone led to a remission of all symptoms, but hyperacusis worsened afterwards. Intravenous cefotaxim diminished hyperacusis but did not completely abate it. Hyperacusis luctuated. Clonazepam led to short-term attenuation of hyperacusis but increased emotional liability. Threshold for sound tolerance increased and sounds no longer seemed to "add up" following carbamazepine and patient reported increased ability to recover more quickly. Pharmacological No remarkable clinical differences were reported by the patient between the unmedicated and medicated (luvoxamine and luoxetine) conditions for (1) pure-tone thresholds, (2) speech thresholds, (3) word recognition scores, or (4) tympanograms and (5) acoustic relex thresholds. Only (6) LDLs were different between the two conditions, with the medicated condition showing increased sound tolerance. Pharmacological Patient self-reported that following the diet regime made her feel better. Pharmacological Hyperacusis and tinnitus persisted but intensity reduced after 1 month of treatment. Surgery The patient initially reported that hyperacusis was worse on risedronate. Following changes to the regime to risedronate, hyperacusis was less frequent and almost gone, although tinnitus and aural fullness remained present. Hyperacusis completely resolved after Surgery procedure and had not returned after 10 months. Surgery Patients reported postoperative improvement in symptoms. Two years after the procedure, symptoms had continued to improve, with no significant problems. he patient self-reported that right-sided hyperacusis significantly improved at 1 Surgery month postop and completely resolved at 3 months postop. The patient was able to resume all choir-related activities. he patient reported marked improvement Surgery of hyperacusis and quality of life, with a decrease in hyperacusis survey scores and LDLs above 90 dB Surgery In the majority of cases (63% = 37 cases), hyperacusis improved or disappeared following surgery. Only in two cases did hyperacusis become more severe, ten years after surgery. Surgery All unilateral patients and two of the three bilateral patients reported subjective improvement in sound hypersensitivity, with reduced questionnaire scores and improved LDLs following treatment. The patients reported no change in hearing and improved quality of life after the procedure; one reported improved noise tolerance in social situations. Figure 2: The four themes and underlying theme to emerge from the content of the working definitions of hyperacusis reported in the included records. Different from "normal" Reduction "Decreased sound tolerance and difficulty adjusting to sudden shifts in volume Pt 1st which may not evoke any such reaction in a normal listener" . "Reduced sound tolerance" . Pt SS "Lowered threshold for sound Pt SS tolerance" . "Decreased sound tolerance" . Pt 1st "The collapse of loudness tolerance so that almost all sounds produce loudness discomfort even though the actual Pt 1st sound intensity is well below that judged to be uncomfortable by others" . "A reduction of normal tolerance for Pt 1st everyday sounds" . Intolerance "Noise intolerance to ordinary sounds, patients often present with emotional, social and physical Pt SS symptoms" . "A potentially disabling intolerance of moderate Pt SS to loud sounds" . "General intolerance to the loudness of sounds that would not typically be bothersome for most Pt/GPb 2nd individuals" . "Tolerance to loud sounds" . Pt SS "Intolerance to the loudness of sounds that most Pt 1st individuals deem to be tolerable" . "Unusual tolerance to ordinary environmental sounds" or as "consistently exaggerated or inappropriate Pt 1st responses to sounds that are neither threatening nor uncomfortably loud to typical person" . "Unusual intolerance to ordinary environmental Pt 1st sounds" . "An unusual intolerance to ordinary environmental Pt 1st sounds" . Reaction "A subject exhibits negative reactions following exposure to sound that would not evoke the same response in an average listener Pt 1st/2nd [...] when negative reactions to a sound depend only on its physical characteristics" . "An abnormally strong response within the auditory pathways Pt 1st resulting from exposure to moderate sound" . "An abnormally strong reaction to sound occurring within the auditory Pt SS pathways" . "An abnormal, generally painful perception of loudness in relation Pt 1st to all normal external noise" . Sensitivity "Disproportionate growth in subjective loudness of sounds. [... ] response on the part of an individual that sounds judged "soft" or "comfortable" to a listener Pt SS with normal hearing are judged "uncomfortable" or "painful" to a patient experiencing hyperacusis... . "Clinically significant, often highly distressing Pt 2nd oversensitivity to common external sounds" . "Auditory hypersensitivity" . Pt 2nd "Bothersome loudness perception at moderate levels GPb 1st [... ] referred to as auditory hypersensitivity" . "Unusual hypersensitivity or discomfort induced by Pt 1st exposure to sound" . "Oversensitivity to sound" . Pt SS "Hypersensitivity to loud sounds" . Pt 2nd "Abnormal sensitivity to sound, extreme sensitivity and instability to some sounds within 3 dB of Pt 1st/SS thresholds" . "An increased sensitivity to auditory stimulation" Pt SS . "Hypersensitivity and discomfort in the presence of common environmental noises (i.e. telephone, Pt SS electric mixer) that would not trouble a normal person" . Study population Pt = patients recruited through clinics GPb = general public Complaint 1st = hyperacusis primary complaint 2nd = hyperacusis secondary complaint SS = hyperacusis within a symptom set
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Fackrell, Kathryn; Potgieter, Iskra; Shekhawat, Giriraj S.; Baguley, David M.; Sereda, Magdalena; Ho|
|Publication:||BioMed Research International|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Evaluation of Stability and In Vitro Security of Nanoemulsions Containing Eucalyptus globulus Oil.|
|Next Article:||Cognitive Impairment in Chronic Kidney Disease: Vascular Milieu and the Potential Therapeutic Role of Exercise.|