Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Acoustic shock controversies

  • Part of
  • R E Hooper
  • Journal:
    The Journal of Laryngology & Otology / Volume 128 / Issue S2 / July 2014
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 February 2014, pp. S2-S9
    Print publication:
    July 2014
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Background:

    The diagnosis ‘acoustic shock’ has been made increasingly in the health care industry in recent years. This paper aims to question the validity of acoustic shock as an organic pathological entity.

    Methods:

    The experiences of 16 individuals diagnosed as having acoustic shock, within a medico-legal practice, are reviewed.

    Results:

    The commonest symptom was otalgia, followed by noise sensitivity, tinnitus, hearing disturbance and dizziness.

    Conclusion:

    The presence of noise-limiting technology in the workplace, the variation in the nature of the acoustic incident involved (ranging from a shriek, through feedback noise, to a male voice), and the marked variation in the time of symptom onset (following the acoustic incident) all suggest that the condition termed acoustic shock is predominantly psychogenic. Cases of pseudohypacusis indicate that malingering is a factor in some cases. Clusters of acoustic shock events occurring in the same call centres suggest that hysteria may play a part. The condition is usually only seen when work-related issues are apparent.