This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Diagnosis and Significance

KINSEY M. SIMONTON, M.D.

AMA Arch Otolaryngol. 1956;63(3):262-269.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The differential diagnosis of lesions of the inner ear and of the acoustic nerve is often difficult and uncertain. Any means of clarifying the problem merits attention. The value of carefully interpreted tests of hearing has been emphasized in recent years. Study of the results of tests of hearing has led to the concept of end-organ deafness as an entity which may be distinguished from deafness of neural origin.

The term "end-organ deafness" is widely accepted in current literature, replacing the terms "cochlear deafness," "inner ear deafness," and "inner ear conduction deafness."

Mygind¹ in 1947 presented a classification of deafness which recognized the division of perceptive deafness into two groups: that of end-organ origin, which Mygind referred to as humoral, and that of nervous origin (Table 1).

Other observers had previously described various phenomena now associated with end-organ deafness. Ménière² in 1861 called attention to bass deafness in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Rochester, Minn.

From the Section of Otolaryngology and Rhinology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation. The Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minn., is a part of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Oct. 4, 1955.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?