Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026
High-Speed Human Temporal Bone Sectioning for the Assessment of COVID-19-Associated Middle Ear Pathology
Published on: May 18, 2022
[Forensic medical identification of 355 cases with hearing impairment]
Xiao-Ping Yang1, Xiao-Rong Zhou, Da-An Dong
1Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, P.R. China, Shanghai 200063, China. yangxp@ssfjd.cn
Objective:
To analyze the difference of subjective hearing threshold and objective hearing threshold, and to discuss the importance of standard for hearing evaluation in forensic medicine.
Methods:
Three hundred and fifty-five cases (387 ears) of forensic medical identification with hearing impairment were retrospectively analyzed including the items entrusted and hearing test results. All cases were collected from 2004 to 2012 in the forensic science center.
Results:
In the 387 ears, 218 ears (56.3%) were evaluated the degree of disability and 106 ears (27.4%) were identified the degree of damage. In the disability degree evaluation, the subjective hearing threshold and the objective hearing threshold were significant different in 120 ears (55.0%), while in damage degree evaluation, the subjective hearing threshold and the objective hearing threshold were significant different in 69 ears (65.1%).
Conclusion:
Because of camouflaging or exaggerating the hearing impairment by the wounded, the subjective hearing threshold can't accurately assess the existence and the degree of hearing impairment. In the forensic identification, auditory brainstem response, 40 Hz auditory event related potential and auditory steady-state response should be combined in the application to evaluate the hearing impairment for the wounded in order to ensure the reliability of the evaluation of hearing impairment.
