Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

In this paper, we examine the diversity underlying “normal hearing” with Australia’s “bionic ear”, ask what normal renders invisible, and consider why it matters when normal displaces questions of how people get there.

Paper long abstract:

“Most young audiologists I work with have never seen a deaf child who can’t talk.” This is how an Australian clinical audiologist who had worked closely with the team that had developed one of the first commercialized cochlear implants (CIs) summarized the experiences of professionals in her field in 2018. Clinical audiology literature supports this statement, suggesting that many people with CIs can test “normally” based on assessments of hearing using pure tones and single sounds in audiometric booths. Furthermore, the speech of many people with CIs is indistinguishable from their typical hearing peers. However, a significant literature also suggests that the hearing of people with CIs is different than that of their typical hearing peers. Different, in this case, includes (1) difficulties hearing in loud environments or situations with multiple speakers, and (2) use of different sensory inputs and neurocognitive processes to hear, as compared to typical hearers. What, then, counts as normal? Where (audiometric booth, day to day environments)? According to what measures? Moreover, does “normal” correspond to outcomes measures (e.g., speech, standard tests) or the biological-technological processes that lead to an outcome, and what if one is “normal” (the former) and the other is not (the latter), according to standards of “normal hearing”? In this paper, we will examine the diversity underlying “normal hearing” with Australia’s “bionic ear”, ask what normal renders invisible, and consider why it matters when normal displaces questions of how people get there.