Figure 6.

Greater TFS coding deficits for NIHL than for MHL are accounted for when compared at equal reduction in the TTR. However, ENV coding remains somewhat worse for NIHL than for MHL even when TTR is considered. Thus, reduction in TTR appears to be the primary (but not only) factor, rather than CF threshold, in explaining the degradations in TFS and ENV tonotopic coding. Coding metrics are the same as in Figures 3 and 4: BF shifts in TFS (A) and ENV coding (B), and below-CF amplitude of TFS (C) and ENV coding (D). Trend lines show the moving average (16 points) for MHL and NIHL. NS, not significant. CFs range from 1.24 to 10.5 kHz.