Universal Newborn Hearing Screenings (UNHS) is mandated in a majority of the United States. Auditory neuropathy is sometimes difficult to catch right away, even with these precautions in place. Parental suspicion of a hearing loss is a trustworthy screening tool for hearing loss, too; if it is suspected, that is sufficient reason to seek a hearing evaluation from an audiologist.

In most parts of Australia, hearing screening via AABR testing is mandated, meaning that essentially all congenital (i.e., not those related to later onset degenerative disorders) auditory neuropathy cases should be diagnosed at birth.

When testing the auditory system, there really is no characteristic presentation on the audiogram.

When diagnosing someone with auditory neuropathy, there is no characteristic level of functioning either. People can present relatively little dysfunction other than problems of hearing speech in noise, or can present as completely deaf and gaining no useful information from auditory signals.

Hearing aids are sometimes prescribed, with mixed success.

Some people with auditory neuropathy obtain cochlear implants, also with mixed success.

Auditory perception can improve with time.There seems to be a level of neuroplasticity that allows patients to recover the ability to perceive environmental and certain musical sounds. Patients presenting with cortical hearing loss and no other associated symptoms recover to a variable degree, depending on the size and type of the cerebral lesion. Patients whose symptoms include both motor deficits and aphasias often have larger lesions with an associated poorer prognosis in regard to functional status and recovery.

Cochlear or auditory brainstem implantation could also be treatment options. Electrical stimulation of the peripheral auditory system may result in improved sound perception or cortical remapping in patients with cortical deafness. However, hearing aids are an inappropriate answer for cases like these. Any auditory signal, regardless if has been amplified to normal or high intensities, is useless to a system unable to complete its processing. Ideally, patients should be directed toward resources to aid them in lip-reading, learning American Sign Language, as well as speech and occupational therapy. Patients should follow-up regularly to evaluate for any long-term recovery.

Research has shown that PC based spatial hearing training software can help some of the children identified as failing to develop their spatial hearing skills (perhaps because of frequent bouts of otitis media with effusion). Further research is needed to discover if a similar approach would help those over 60 to recover the loss of their spatial hearing. One such study showed that dichotic test scores for the left ear improved with daily training. Related research into the plasticity of white-matter (see Lövdén et al. for example) suggests some recovery may be possible.

Music training leads to superior understanding of speech in noise across age groups and musical experience protects against age-related degradation in neural timing. Unlike speech (fast temporal information), music (pitch information) is primarily processed by areas of the brain in the right hemisphere. Given that it seems likely that the right ear advantage (REA) for speech is present from birth, it would follow that a left ear advantage for music is also present from birth and that MOC efferent inhibition (of the right ear) plays a similar role in creating this advantage. Does greater exposure to music increase conscious control of cochlear gain and inhibition? Further research is needed to explore the apparent ability of music to promote an enhanced capability of speech in noise recognition.

Bilateral digital hearing aids do not preserve localization cues (see, for example, Van den Bogaert et al., 2006) This means that audiologists when fitting hearing aids to patients (with a mild to moderate age related loss) risk negatively impacting their spatial hearing capability. With those patients who feel that their lack of understanding of speech in background noise is their primary hearing difficulty then hearing aids may simply make their problem even worse - their spatial hearing gain will be reduced by in the region of 10 dB. Although further research is needed, there is a growing number of studies which have shown that open-fit hearing aids are better able to preserve localisation cues (see, for example, Alworth 2011)

This may include a blood or other sera test for inflammatory markers such as those for autoinflammatory diseases.

One treatment thought to be effective is the repeated exposure to a particular face or object, where impaired perception may be reorganized in memory, leading to improvement on tests of imagery relative to tests of perception. The key factor for this type of treatment to be successful is a regular and consistent exposure, which will lead to improvements in the long run. Results may not be seen right away, but are eventually possible.

Learning of the central nervous system by "plasticity" or biological maturation over time does not improve the performance of monaural listening. In addition to conventional methods for improving the performance of the impaired ear, there are also hearing aids adapted to unilateral hearing loss which are of very limited effectiveness due to the fact that they don't restore the stereo hearing ability.

- Contralateral Routing of Signals (CROS) hearing aids are hearing aids that take sound from the ear with poorer hearing and transmit to the ear with better hearing. There are several types of CROS hearing aid:

- conventional CROS comprises a microphone placed near the impaired ear and an amplifier (hearing aid) near the normal ear. The two units are connected either by a wire behind the neck or by wireless transmission. The aid appears as two behind-the-ear hearing aids and is sometimes incorporated into eyeglasses.

- CIC transcranial CROS comprises a bone conduction hearing aid completely in the ear canal (CIC). A high-power conventional air conduction hearing aid fits deeply into the patient’s deaf ear. Vibration of the bony walls of the ear canal and middle ear stimulates the normal ear by means of bone conduction through the skull.

- BAHA transcranial CROS Bone Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA): a surgically implanted abutment transmits sound from the deaf ear by direct bone conduction and stimulates the cochlea of the normal hearing ear.

- SoundBite Intraoral bone conduction which uses bone conduction via the teeth. One component resembles a conventional behind-the-ear hearing aid that wirelessly connects to a second component worn in the mouth that resembles a conventional dental appliance.

In Germany and Canada, cochlear implants have been used with great success to mostly restore the stereo hearing ability, minimizing the impacts of the SSD and the quality of life of the patient.

As of 2012 there has only been one small-scale study comparing CROS systems.

One study of the BAHA system showed a benefit depending on the patient's transcranial attenuation. Another study showed that sound localisation was not improved, but the effect of the head shadow was reduced.

As part of differential diagnosis, an MRI scan may be done to check for vascular anomalies, tumors, and structural problems like enlarged mastoids. MRI and other types of scan cannot directly detect or measure age-related hearing loss.

NIHL can be prevented through the use of simple, widely available, and economical tools. This includes but is not limited to personal noise reduction through the use of ear protection (i.e. earplugs and earmuffs), education, and hearing conservation programs. For the average person, there are three basic things that can be kept in mind to reduce NIHL, “walk away, turn it down, protect your ears.”

Non-occupational noise exposure is not regulated or governed in the same manner as occupational noise exposure; therefore prevention efforts rely heavily on education awareness campaigns and public policy. The WHO cites that nearly half of those affected by hearing loss could have been prevented through primary prevention efforts such as: “reducing exposure (both occupational and recreational) to loud sounds by raising awareness about the risks; developing and enforcing relevant legislation; and encouraging individuals to use personal protective devices such as earplugs and noise-cancelling earphones and headphones.”

In case of infection or inflammation, blood or other body fluids may be submitted for laboratory analysis.

Spatial hearing loss can be diagnosed using the Listening in Spatialized Noise – Sentences test (LiSN-S), which was designed to assess the ability of children with central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) to understand speech in background noise. The LiSN-S allows audiologists to measure how well a person uses spatial (and pitch information) to understand speech in noise. Inability to use spatial information has been found to be a leading cause of CAPD in children.

Test participants repeat a series of target sentences which are presented simultaneously with competing speech. The listener's speech reception threshold (SRT) for target sentences is calculated using an adaptive procedure. The targets are perceived as coming from in front of the listener whereas the distracters vary according to where they are perceived spatially (either directly in front or either side of the listener). The vocal identity of the distracters also varies (either the same as, or different from, the speaker of the target sentences).

Performance on the LISN-S is evaluated by comparing listeners' performances across four listening conditions, generating two SRT measures and three "advantage" measures. The advantage measures represent the benefit in dB gained when either talker, spatial, or both talker and spatial cues are available to the listener. The use of advantage measures minimizes the influence of higher order skills on test performance. This serves to control for the inevitable differences that exist between individuals in functions such as language or memory.

Dichotic listening tests can be used to measure the efficacy of the attentional control of cochlear inhibition and the inter-hemispheric transfer of auditory information. Dichotic listening performance typically increases (and the right-ear advantage decreases) with the development of the Corpus Callosum (CC), peaking before the fourth decade. During middle age and older the auditory system ages, the CC reduces in size, and dichotic listening becomes worse, primarily in the left ear. Dichotic listening tests typically involve two different auditory stimuli (usually speech) presented simultaneously, one to each ear, using a set of headphones. Participants are asked to attend to one or (in a divided-attention test) both of the messages.

The activity of the medial olivocochlear bundle (MOC) and its inhibition of cochlear gain can be measured using a Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission (DPOE) recording method. This involves the contralateral presentation of broadband noise and the measurement of both DPOAE amplitudes and the latency of onset of DPOAE suppression. DPOAE suppression is significantly affected by age and becomes difficult to detect by approximately 50 years of age.

Hearing loss is generally measured by playing generated or recorded sounds, and determining whether the person can hear them. Hearing sensitivity varies according to the frequency of sounds. To take this into account, hearing sensitivity can be measured for a range of frequencies and plotted on an audiogram.

Another method for quantifying hearing loss is a speech-in-noise test. As the name implies, a speech-in-noise test gives an indication of how well one can understand speech in a noisy environment. A person with a hearing loss will often be less able to understand speech, especially in noisy conditions. This is especially true for people who have a sensorineural loss – which is by far the most common type of hearing loss. As such, speech-in-noise tests can provide valuable information about a person's hearing ability, and can be used to detect the presence of a sensorineural hearing loss. A recently developed digit-triple speech-in-noise test may be a more efficient screening test.

Otoacoustic emissions test is an objective hearing test that may be administered to toddlers and children too young to cooperate in a conventional hearing test. The test is also useful in older children and adults.

Auditory brainstem response testing is an electrophysiological test used to test for hearing deficits caused by pathology within the ear, the cochlear nerve and also within the brainstem. This test can be used to identify delay in the conduction of neural impulses due to tumours or inflammation but can also be an objective test of hearing thresholds. Other electrophysiological tests, such as cortical evoked responses, can look at the hearing pathway up to the level of the auditory cortex.

Cortical deafness is a rare form of sensorineural hearing loss caused by damage to the primary auditory cortex. Cortical deafness is an auditory disorder where the patient is unable to hear sounds but has no apparent damage to the anatomy of the ear (see auditory system), which can be thought of as the combination of auditory verbal agnosia and auditory agnosia. Patients with cortical deafness cannot hear any sounds, that is, they are not aware of sounds including non-speech, voices, and speech sounds. Although patients appear and feel completely deaf, they can still exhibit some reflex responses such as turning their head towards a loud sound.

Cortical deafness is caused by bilateral cortical lesions in the primary auditory cortex located in the temporal lobes of the brain. The ascending auditory pathways are damaged, causing a loss of perception of sound. Inner ear functions, however, remains intact. Cortical deafness is most often cause by stroke, but can also result from brain injury or birth defects. More specifically, a common cause is bilateral embolic stroke to the area of Heschl's gyri. Cortical deafness is extremely rare, with only twelve reported cases. Each case has a distinct context and different rates of recovery.

It is thought that cortical deafness could be a part of a spectrum of an overall cortical hearing disorder. In some cases, patients with cortical deafness have had recovery of some hearing function, resulting in partial auditory deficits such as auditory verbal agnosia. This syndrome might be difficult to distinguish from a bilateral temporal lesion such as described above.

Personal noise reduction devices can be passive, active or a combination. Passive ear protection includes earplugs or earmuffs which can block noise up to a specific frequency. Earplugs and earmuffs can provide the wearer with 10 dB to 40 dB of attenuation. However, use of earplugs is only effective if the users have been educated and use them properly; without proper use, protection falls far below manufacturer ratings. Higher consistency of performance has been found with custom-molded earplugs. Because of their ease of use without education, and ease of application or removal, earmuffs have more consistency with both compliance and noise attenuation. Active ear protection (electronic pass-through hearing protection devices or EPHPs) electronically filter out noises of specific frequencies or decibels while allowing the remaining noise to pass through.

Most causes of conductive hearing loss can be identified by examination but if it is important to image the bones of the middle ear or inner ear then a CT scan is required. CT scan is useful in cases of congenital conductive hearing loss, chronic suppurative otitis media or cholesteatoma, ossicular damage or discontinuity, otosclerosis and third window dehiscence. Specific MRI scans can be used to identify cholesteatoma.

Tympanometry, or acoustic immitance testing, is a simple objective test of the ability of the middle ear to transmit sound waves across it. This test is usually abnormal with conductive hearing loss.

Cases with integrative agnosia appear to have medial ventral lesions in the extrastriate cortex. Those who have integrative agnosia are better able to identify inanimate than animate items, which indicates processes that lead to accurate perceptual organization of visual information can be impaired. This is attributed to the importance of perceptual updating of stored visual knowledge, which is particularly important for classes of stimuli that have many perceptual neighbors and/or stimuli for which perceptual features are central to their stored representations. Patients also show a tendency to process visual stimuli initially at a global rather than local level. Although the grouping of local elements into perceptual wholes can be impaired, patients can remain sensitive to holistic visual representations.

When determining whether a patient has form agnosia or integrative agnosia, an Efron shape test can be performed. A poor score on the Efron shape test will indicate form agnosia, as opposed to integrative agnosia. A good score on the Efron shape test, but a poor score on a figure-ground segmentation test and an overlapping figures test will indicate integrative agnosia. A patient with integrative agnosia will find it hard to group and segment shapes, especially if there are overlapping animate items or they can over segment objects with high internal detail. However, the patient should have and understand basic coding of shape.

The diagnosis of amusia requires individuals to detect out-of-key notes in conventional but unfamiliar melodies. A behavioral failure on this test is diagnostic because there is typically no overlap between the distributions of the scores of amusics and controls. Such scores are generally obtained through the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA), which involves a series of tests that evaluate the use of musical characteristics known to contribute to the memory and perception of conventional music. The battery comprises six subtests which assess the ability to discriminate pitch contour, musical scales, pitch intervals, rhythm, meter, and memory. An individual is considered amusic if he/she performs two standard deviations below the mean obtained by musically-competent controls. This musical pitch disorder represents a phenotype that serves to identify the associated neuro-genetic factors. Both MRI-based brain structural analyses and electroencephalography (EEG) are common methods employed to uncover brain anomalies associated with amusia (See Neuroanatomy). Additionally, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is used to detect anatomical differences between the MRIs of amusic brains and musically intact brains, specifically with respect increased and/or decreased amounts of white and grey matter.

In cases where the causes are environmental, the treatment is to eliminate or reduce these causes first of all, and then to fit patients with a hearing aid, especially if they are elderly. When the loss is due to heredity, total deafness is often the end result. On the one hand, persons who experience gradual deterioration of their hearing are fortunate in that they have learned to speak. Ultimately the affected person may bridge communication problems by becoming skilled in sign language, speech-reading, using a hearing aid, or accepting elective surgery to use a prosthetic devices such as a cochlear implant.

Each year in the United States, approximately 12,000 babies are born with hearing loss. Profound hearing loss occurs in somewhere between 4 to 11 per every 10,000 children.

Prelingual hearing loss can be either acquired, meaning it occurred after birth due to illness or injury, or it can be congenital, meaning it was present at birth. Congenital hearing loss can be caused by genetic or nongenetic factors. The nongenetic factors account for about one fourth of the congenital hearing losses in infants. These factors could include: Maternal infections, such as rubella, cytomegalovirus, or herpes simplex virus, lack of oxygen, maternal diabetes, toxemia during pregnancy, low birth weight, prematurity, birth injuries, toxins including drugs and alcohol consumed by the mother during pregnancy, and complications associated with the Rh factor in the blood/jaundice. Genetic factors account for over half of the infants with congenital hearing loss. Most of these are caused by an autosomal recessive hearing loss or an autosomal dominant hearing loss. Autosomal recessive hearing loss is when both parents carry the recessive gene, and pass it on to their child. The autosomal dominant hearing loss is when an abnormal gene from one parent is able to cause hearing loss even though the matching gene from the other parent is normal.

In some cases, the loss is extremely sudden and can be traced to specific diseases, such as meningitis, or to ototoxic medications, such as Gentamicin. In both cases, the final degree of loss varies. Some experience only partial loss, while others become profoundly deaf. Hearing aids and cochlear implants may be used to regain a sense of hearing, with different people experiencing differing degrees of success. It is possible that the affected person may need to rely on speech-reading and/or sign language for communication.

In most cases the loss is a long term degradation in hearing loss. Discrediting earlier notions of presbycusis, Rosen demonstrated that long term hearing loss is usually the product of chronic exposure to environmental noise in industrialized countries (Rosen, 1965). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has asserted the same sentiment and testified before the U.S. Congress that approximately 34 million Americans are exposed to noise pollution levels (mostly from roadway and aircraft noise) that expose humans to noise health effects including the risk of hearing loss (EPA, 1972).

Certain genetic conditions can also lead to post-lingual deafness. In contrast to genetic causes of pre-lingual deafness, which are frequently autosomal recessive, genetic causes of post-lingual deafness tend to be autosomal dominant.

Differential testing is most useful when there is unilateral hearing loss, and distinguishes conductive from sensorineural loss. These are conducted with a low frequency tuning fork, usually 512 Hz, and contrast measures of air and bone conducted sound transmission.

- Weber test, in which a tuning fork is touched to the midline of the forehead, localizes to the normal ear in people with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.

- Rinne test, which tests air conduction "vs." bone conduction is positive, because both bone and air conduction are reduced equally.

- less common Bing and Schwabach variants of the Rinne test.

- absolute bone conduction (ABC) test.

"Table 1". A table comparing sensorineural to conductive hearing loss

Other, more complex, tests of auditory function are required to distinguish the different types of hearing loss. Bone conduction thresholds can differentiate sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss. Other tests, such as oto-acoustic emissions, acoustic stapedial reflexes, speech audiometry and evoked response audiometry are needed to distinguish sensory, neural and auditory processing hearing impairments.

Currently, no forms of treatment have proven effective in treating amusia. One study has shown tone differentiation techniques to have some success, however future research on treatment of this disorder will be necessary to verify this technique as an appropriate treatment.