The Otologist’s Tuning Fork Examination—Are You Striking It Correctly?

Stevens, Jayne R.; Pfannenstiel, Travis J.

doi:10.1177/0194599814559697

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, we analyzed only unused C2-TF, and the difference rate of its rFF from 512 Hz was 0.4%. In the second figure of the study published by Stevens and Pfannenstiel [9] , the tested C2-TF produced FF in 509 Hz, which meant 0.58% in difference rate according to the formula used in our study. It is known that audible energy levels change through frequency of the sound wave; hence, 5 dB-SPL at 500 Hz equals to 0 dB-HL in audiometric tests [16] , and it becomes 15 dB-SPL at 250 Hz.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…In our study, the shift in rFFs and shortening in its decay times were more common in C1-and C2-TFs, whereas C3-TFs presented rFF closer to the assumed values by the manufacturer and reasonably longer decay times. Stevens and Pfannenstiel [9] provided similar data that additional non-harmonic frequencies were noted when C1 and C2-TFs, but not C3-TF, were struck off metal and wooden surfaces. It could be said that longer wave-lengths during cyclic action are more prone to metal fatigue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Although we activated all TFs with a psiform strike in our study, they must have been struck on various materials through the years as well-known in otorhinolaryngology practice. The additional pressure waves produced when struck with metal and wooden surfaces [9] could be one of the factors responsible for the predisposition to the metal fatigue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been shown that better results are provided by experienced physicians when the basic rules are followed [6,9] . Briefly, the prongs of any TF should be sharply struck at a point approximately one-third of its length from the free end against some resistant, but elastic, object [6] ; palmar strike on the physicians' thenar eminence of the other hand is mostly recommended [6,9] . The first TF invented by Shore in 1711 [8,10] , the first TF given to the Foundling Hospital of London in 1751 by Hendel [10] , and the first TF which was known to be clinically used by Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1827 [8] were all steel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Acoustic Analysis of Used Tuning Forks

Yüksel

Kemaloğlu²

2017

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:In this study, we evaluated used aluminum tuning forks (TFs) for fundamental frequencies (FF), overtones, and decay times. MATERIALS and METHODS:In total, 15 used (1 C1, 11 C2, and 3 C3) and 1 unused (C2) TFs were tuned, and the recorded sound data were analyzed using the Praat sound analysis program. RESULTS:It was found that FFs of the recorded sounds produced by the used C2-TFs presented a high variability from 0.19% to 74.15% from the assumed FFs, whereas this rate was smaller (1.49%) in the used C3-TFs. Further, decay times of the used C2-TFs varied from 5.41 to 40.97 s. CONCLUSION:This study, as the first of its kind in the literature, reported that some of the used aluminum TFs lost their physical properties that are important for clinical TF tests. It could be said that this is a phenomenon related to metal fatigue, which is common in aluminum products due to the cyclic load.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Acoustic Analysis of Used Tuning Forks

Yüksel

Kemaloğlu²

2017

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The cell phone vibration test: A telemedicine substitute for the tuning fork test

Yang

Lewis

Watson

et al. 2021

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: An at home-test for differentiating between conductive and sensorineural hearing loss remains elusive. Our goal was to validate the novel cell-phone vibration test (CPVT) against the Weber tuning fork test (WTFT) and to assess if the CPVT can be self-administered by patients reliably.Study design: Cross-sectional. Methods:The CPVT involves placement of a vibrating cellphone on the center of the forehead to determine which ear perceives the sound louder. 40 consecutive adult patients with an audiogram within 6 months and no report of recent hearing changes were recruited. Group 1 consisted of 20 patients who were examined by the provider with the CPVT and WTFT using various tuning forks (256, 512, and 1024 Hz). Group 2 consisted of an additional 20 patients who received instructions on selfadministering the CPVT. Kappa statistics were calculated to assess the strength of concordance between the CPVT, WTFT, and audiometric findings for group 1 and between patient self-administered and provider administered CPVT and WTFT for group 2.Results: Concordance between CPVT and WTFT in the entire cohort was substantial (Kappa coefficient: 0.81 for 256 Hz, 0.73 for 512 Hz, and 0.62 for 1024 Hz) with similar concordances between actual and expected results based on audiogram (Kappa coefficient: 0.52 for CPVT and 0.52 for WTFT). Concordance between patient-administered and provider-administered CPVT showed almost perfect agreement (Kappa coefficient: 0.92). Conclusions:The CPVT provides consistent results when compared to a formal WTFT and can be reliably self-administered by patients with appropriate instructions.

show abstract