Community hub
Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Weber test
View on Wikipedia | This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2019) |
| Weber test. | |
|---|---|
| ICD-9-CM | 95.43 |
The Weber test is a screening test for hearing performed with a tuning fork.[1][2] It can detect unilateral (one-sided) conductive hearing loss (middle ear hearing loss) and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (inner ear hearing loss).[3] The test is named after Ernst Heinrich Weber (1795–1878). Conductive hearing ability is mediated by the middle ear composed of the ossicles: the malleus, the incus, and the stapes. Sensorineural hearing ability is mediated by the inner ear composed of the cochlea with its internal basilar membrane and attached cochlear nerve (cranial nerve VIII). The outer ear consisting of the pinna, ear canal, and ear drum or tympanic membrane transmits sounds to the middle ear but does not contribute to the conduction or sensorineural hearing ability save for hearing transmissions limited by cerumen impaction (wax collection in the ear canal).
The Weber test has had its value as a screening test questioned in the literature.[4][5]
Weber test performance
[edit]The Weber and the Rinne test (/ˈrɪnə/ RIN-ə)[6] are typically performed together when the results of each combined to determine the location and nature of any hearing losses detected. In the Weber test a vibrating tuning fork (Typically 256 Hz[7] or 512 Hz[8] used for Weber vibration test; 512 Hz used for Rinne hearing test) is placed in the middle of the forehead, above the upper lip under the nose over the teeth, or on top of the head equidistant from the patient's ears on top of thin skin in contact with the bone. The patient is asked to report in which ear the sound is heard louder. A normal Weber test has a patient reporting the sound heard equally in both sides. In an affected patient, if the defective ear hears the Weber tuning fork louder, the finding indicates a conductive hearing loss in the defective ear. Also in the affected patient, if the normal ear hears the tuning fork sound better, there is sensorineural hearing loss on the other (defective) ear. However, this assumes that it is known which ear is defective and which is normal (e.g. by the patient telling the clinician that they cannot hear as well in one ear as in the other), when the testing is being done to characterize the type, conductive or sensorineural, of hearing loss that is occurring. In the case where the patient is unaware or has acclimated to their hearing loss, the clinician has to use the Rinne test in conjunction with the Weber to characterize and localize any deficits. That is, an abnormal Weber test is only able to tell the clinician that there is a conductive loss in the ear which hears better or that there is a sensorineural loss in the ear which does not hear as well.
For the Rinne test, a vibrating tuning fork (typically 512 Hz) is placed initially on the mastoid process behind each ear until sound is no longer heard. Then, without re-striking the fork, the fork is then quickly placed just outside the ear with the patient asked to report when the sound caused by the vibration is no longer heard. A normal or positive Rinne test is when sound is still heard when the tuning fork is moved to the air near the ear (air conduction or AC), indicating that AC is equal or greater than bone conduction (or BC). Therefore, AC > BC; which is how it is reported clinically for a normal or positive Rinne result. In conductive hearing loss, bone conduction is better than air or BC > AC, a negative Rinne, if the patient reports that they do not hear the fork once it is moved. The Rinne test is not ideal for distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss, as both sensorineural hearing loss and normal hearing report a positive Rinne test (though the sensorineural patient will have a decreased duration of hearing sound once the fork is moved to air).
In a normal patient, the Weber tuning fork sound is heard equally loudly in both ears, with no one ear hearing the sound louder than the other (lateralization). Similarly, a patient with symmetrical hearing loss will hear the Weber tuning fork sound equally well, with diagnostic utility only in asymmetric (one-sided) hearing losses. In a patient with hearing loss, the Weber tuning fork sound is heard louder in one ear (lateralization) than the other. This clinical finding should be confirmed by repeating the procedure and having the patient occlude one ear with a finger; the sound should be heard best in the occluded ear.
The results of both tests are noted and compared accordingly below to localize and characterize the nature of any detected hearing losses. Note: the Weber and Rinne are screening tests that are not replacements for formal audiometry hearing tests. Reported test accuracy measurements are very variable for clinical screening, surgical candidacy assessments, and estimation of hearing loss severity.[9][4]
Weber test Rinne test |
lateralizes to left | no lateralization | lateralizes to right | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| left ear | right ear | left ear | right ear | both ears | left ear | right ear | |
| ⊕ | ⊕ | Normal | SN loss | Normal | SN loss | Normal | |
| SN loss | |||||||
| ⊖ | ⊕ | Conductive loss | Normal | (no such condition) | Combined loss | Normal | |
| ⊕ | ⊖ | Normal | Combined loss | Normal | Conductive loss | ||
| ⊖ | ⊖ | Conductive loss | Combined loss | Conductive loss | Combined loss | Conductive loss | |
| SN loss = Sensorineural loss, Combined loss = Conductive & Sensorineural loss | |||||||
Detection of air conductive hearing loss
[edit]A patient with a unilateral conductive hearing loss would hear the tuning fork loudest in the affected ear. This is because the ear with the conductive hearing loss is only receiving input from the bone conduction and no air conduction, and the sound is perceived as louder in that ear.[10] This finding is due to the conduction problem of the middle ear (incus, malleus, stapes, and external auditory meatus) which masks the ambient noise of the room, while the well-functioning inner ear (cochlea with its basilar membrane) picks the sound up via the bones of the skull, causing it to be perceived as a louder sound in the affected ear. Another theory, however, is based on the occlusion effect described by Tonndorf et al, in 1966. Lower frequency sounds (as made by the 256 Hz fork) that are transferred through the bone to the ear canal escape from the canal. If an occlusion is present, the sound cannot escape and appears louder on the ear with the conductive hearing loss.[11]
Conductive hearing loss can be mimicked by plugging one ear with a finger and performing the Rinne and Weber tests, which will help clarify the above. Humming a constant note and then plugging one ear is a good way to mimic the findings of the Weber test in conductive hearing loss. The simulation of the Weber test is the basis for the Bing test.
Detection of sensorineural hearing loss
[edit]If air conduction is intact on both sides (therefore no CHL), the patient will report a quieter sound in the ear with the sensorineuronal hearing loss. This is because the ear with the sensorineuronal hearing loss is not converting input from either the air or bone conduction, and the sound is perceived as louder in the normal ear.[10]
Considerations and limitations
[edit]This Weber test is most useful in individuals with hearing that is different between the two ears. It cannot confirm normal hearing because it does not measure sound sensitivity in a quantitative manner. Hearing defects affecting both ears equally, as in presbycusis will produce an apparently normal test result.
Weber test considerations The Weber test reflects conduction loss in the ipsilateral ear because, in the event of impaired conduction, ipsilateral sensorineural hearing is perceived as louder; this is the same reason humming becomes more salient when covering the ears. If the Weber-lateralized ear has a positive Rinne test (AC>BC), that generally means the absence of conduction loss in that ear, and the reason sound had been perceived as louder on that side is because a sensorineural loss is present contralaterally; an ipsilateral negative Rinne test (BC>AC), on the other hand, would confirm ipsilateral conductive hearing loss (although contralateral sensorineural hearing loss may still be present. If the Weber-lateralized ear has a positive Rinne test and the contralateral ear has a negative Rinne test, then both conductive and sensorineural hearing loss are present in the contralateral ear. This is because sensorineural deficits always take auditory precedence over conductive ones, so even though conductive hearing loss is present in the contralateral ear, it is the sensorineural deficit that is responsible for the ipsilateral perceived elevation of volume. This also means that a Weber-lateralized ear with bilateral negative-Rinne corresponds to only sensorineural hearing on the ipsilateral side not being affected.
Rinne test considerations Although there is no replacement for formal audiometry, a quick screening test can be made by complementing the Weber test with the Rinne test.
The Rinne test is used in cases of unilateral hearing loss and establishes which ear has the greater bone conduction. Combined with the patient's perceived hearing loss, it can be determined if the cause is sensorineural or conductive. For example, if the Rinne test shows that air conduction (AC) is greater than bone conduction (BC) in both ears and the Weber test lateralizes to a particular ear, then there is sensorineural hearing loss in the opposite (weaker) ear. Conductive hearing loss is confirmed in the weaker ear if bone conduction is greater than air conduction and the Weber test lateralizes to that side. Combined hearing loss is likely if the Weber test lateralizes to the stronger ear and bone conduction is greater than air conduction in the weaker ear.
References
[edit]- ^ Kong, Erwin L.; Fowler, James B. (2019), "Rinne Test", StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, PMID 28613725, retrieved 2019-04-24
- ^ Wahid, Nur Wahidah B.; Attia, Maximos (2019), "Weber Test", StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, PMID 30252391, retrieved 2019-04-24
- ^ Betts, J Gordon; Desaix, Peter; Johnson, Eddie; Johnson, Jody E; Korol, Oksana; Kruse, Dean; Poe, Brandon; Wise, James; Womble, Mark D; Young, Kelly A (May 14, 2023). Anatomy & Physiology. Houston: OpenStax CNX. 16.3 The Cranial Nerve Exam. ISBN 978-1-947172-04-3.
- ^ a b Bagai A, Thavendiranathan P, Detsky AS (January 2006). "Does this patient have hearing impairment?". JAMA. 295 (4): 416–28. doi:10.1001/jama.295.4.416. PMID 16434632.
- ^ Mugunthan, Kayalvili; Doust, Jenny; Kurz, Bodo; Glasziou, Paul (2014-08-04). "Is there sufficient evidence for tuning fork tests in diagnosing fractures? A systematic review". BMJ Open. 4 (8) e005238. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005238. ISSN 2044-6055. PMC 4127942. PMID 25091014.
- ^ Vaswani, Ravi; Parikh, Leena; Udochi, Njideka; Vaswani, Surender K. (2008-10-10). "Rinne test modified to quantify hearing". Southern Medical Journal. 101 (1): 107–108. doi:10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31815d3d4d. ISSN 1541-8243. PMID 18176307.
- ^ Walker, H. K.; Hall, W. D.; Hurst, J. W.; Turner Js, J. R. (1990). "The Ear and Auditory System". Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. Butterworths. ISBN 978-0-409-90077-4. PMID 21250075.
- ^ "Understanding Hearing & Balance". Archived from the original on 2015-10-07. Retrieved 2015-10-06.
- ^ Kelly, Elizabeth A.; Li, Bin; Adams, Meredith E. (2018-08-08). "Diagnostic Accuracy of Tuning Fork Tests for Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review". Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. 159 (2): 220–230. doi:10.1177/0194599818770405. ISSN 1097-6817. PMID 29661046. S2CID 4952175.
- ^ a b "Deciphering the Weber and Rinne Tuning Fork Tests". Archived from the original on 2014-06-09.
- ^ Mbubaegbu CE (November 2002). "Weber's test demystified. Physics renders Weber's test not so mysterious . ". BMJ. 325 (7372): 1117. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7372.1117. PMC 1124596. PMID 12424184.
See also
[edit]Weber test
View on GrokipediaIntroduction
Definition and purpose
The Weber test is a subjective screening procedure for evaluating hearing asymmetry through bone conduction. It involves placing a vibrating tuning fork on the midline of the skull, such as the forehead, vertex, or nasal bridge, to assess how the patient perceives the sound's location.[4][2][5] This method relies on the patient's verbal report to determine if the sound is heard centrally (midline), lateralized to one ear, or equally in both ears, serving as a simple indicator of auditory function.[6][5] The primary purpose of the Weber test is to provide a quick assessment of unilateral or asymmetric hearing loss and to help distinguish between conductive and sensorineural impairments without requiring advanced equipment.[2][4] It facilitates initial triage in hearing evaluations, enabling clinicians to identify the need for more comprehensive testing.[6] In clinical settings, the Weber test is routinely incorporated into bedside neurological and otological examinations, particularly in primary care, emergency departments, or by otolaryngologists during preliminary assessments of auditory symptoms.[2][4] A standard 512 Hz tuning fork is typically employed for this purpose, balancing audibility and sensitivity.[6][2]Historical background
The Weber test originated with the work of Ernst Heinrich Weber (1795–1878), a German anatomist and physiologist at the University of Leipzig, who first described the phenomenon of bone conduction and sound lateralization in 1834.[7] In his seminal publication De pulsu, resorptione, auditu et tactu, Weber detailed experiments demonstrating how vibrations from a sound source placed on the skull's midline are perceived unequally in each ear when hearing differs between them, laying the foundational principle for the test.[8] This discovery was part of Weber's broader investigations into sensory physiology, including touch and audition, conducted amid 19th-century European advancements in understanding mechanical vibrations and perceptual thresholds.[9] Although Weber's observations were primarily experimental rather than clinically oriented, they were adapted for medical use shortly thereafter. In 1845, Eduard Schmalz, an otologist in Dresden, introduced the tuning fork-based application of Weber's findings into otological diagnostics, providing the first detailed clinical description of the test for assessing unilateral hearing impairments.[8] This marked an early step in its evolution from physiological research to practical audiological evaluation, coinciding with growing interest in otology during the mid-19th century.[10] By the late 19th century, the Weber test had become integrated into routine clinical practice, often used in conjunction with the Rinne test—developed by Heinrich Adolf Rinne in 1855—to differentiate types of hearing loss.[9] Its adoption accelerated as tuning fork diagnostics gained prominence in European medical literature, with standardization of the fork's frequency at 512 Hz facilitating consistent application.[9] By the early 20th century, the test was firmly established in medical education and featured prominently in otology textbooks, solidifying its role as a fundamental screening tool in audiology.Procedure
Required equipment
The Weber test utilizes a single primary instrument: a tuning fork with a frequency of 512 Hz, which is preferred in clinical practice for providing the optimal balance between tone decay duration and minimal tactile vibration, thereby facilitating accurate bone conduction assessment without significant air conduction interference.[1] These tuning forks are typically constructed from steel for durability and reliable resonance, incorporating a weighted base to produce sustained vibration suitable for the duration of the test.[11] If a 512 Hz tuning fork is unavailable, a 256 Hz alternative may be employed, though it generates greater tactile sensation that can potentially confound auditory localization.[1] No additional specialized equipment is required beyond the tuning fork itself, with placement on a bony midline structure such as the patient's forehead to ensure effective transmission of vibrations; electronic devices are unnecessary for this bedside procedure.[2] Standard 512 Hz tuning forks are widely available from medical suppliers, offering a cost-effective and highly portable option ideal for both clinical and field-based hearing screenings.[1]Step-by-step performance
To perform the Weber test, select a quiet room to reduce ambient noise that could interfere with the patient's perception of the sound.[12] Explain the procedure to the patient in simple terms and obtain verbal consent prior to beginning.[1] Use a 512 Hz tuning fork, as this frequency provides optimal tone without excessive tactile vibration.[1] The test is conducted as follows:- Hold the tuning fork by its stem between the thumb and index finger.[1]
- Activate the tuning fork by striking the tines approximately one-third to two-thirds from the free end against a firm but padded surface, such as the clinician's elbow or knee, to initiate vibration without producing unwanted harmonics or overtones; avoid hard surfaces like a table.[12][1]
- Immediately place the base of the vibrating tuning fork firmly but steadily on the midline of the patient's forehead, vertex of the skull, bridge of the nose, chin, or maxillary incisors, ensuring it is equidistant from both ears and without applying excessive pressure.[12][1] Use the clinician's other hand to provide gentle counter-pressure on the opposite side of the head if needed for stability.[12]
- Instruct the patient to indicate where they perceive the sound as coming from, using options such as "in the middle," "in the left ear," "in the right ear," or "in both ears equally."[1] For pediatric or cognitively impaired patients, they may point to the ear or indicate verbally as appropriate.[12]
- Maintain the placement for the duration of the vibration, typically 10 to 20 seconds until the sound fades, or up to 4 seconds initially to assess response; repeat the activation and placement 1 to 2 times if the patient is unsure or for confirmation.[12][1]
Physiological basis
Mechanism of lateralization
The Weber test relies on bone conduction, in which mechanical vibrations from a tuning fork placed on the midline of the skull are transmitted primarily through the cranial bones to the cochleae, bypassing the external ear and partially involving the middle ear structures through inertial mechanisms.[13] This pathway allows the vibrations to stimulate the fluid in the inner ear, generating sound perception with reduced reliance on air conduction and variable involvement of ossicular conduction. In individuals with symmetric hearing between the ears, the vibrations reach both cochleae with equal intensity, resulting in the perception of sound at the midline, as the brain integrates the balanced inputs from each side.[7] However, when there is an asymmetry in hearing conduction efficiency, the sound lateralizes toward the ear where the vibrations are transmitted more effectively, appearing louder in that ear due to relatively greater stimulation of its cochlear hair cells.[12] The neural basis of this lateralization involves simultaneous stimulation of both inner ears, with afferent signals traveling via the cochlear nerves to the brainstem's cochlear nuclei and then through the superior olivary complex, where binaural processing detects interaural intensity differences.[15] The brain interprets these imbalances as directional cues, localizing the sound to the ear receiving the stronger signal based on differences in cochlear sensitivity.[16] Fundamentally, the test assesses relative conduction efficiency between the ears rather than absolute hearing thresholds, as even small interaural differences (around 5 dB) in bone conduction can produce noticeable lateralization.[12]Sound conduction pathways
In the Weber test, sound is transmitted primarily through bone conduction, where mechanical vibrations from a tuning fork placed on the midline of the skull propagate through the cranial bones, particularly the temporal bone, to stimulate the cochlea. These vibrations reach the inner ear through multiple pathways, including inertial effects at the oval and round windows and direct compression of cochlear walls, setting the perilymph fluid in motion within the scala vestibuli and scala tympani of the cochlea. This pathway allows direct excitation of the cochlear structures without relying on the traditional air conduction route.[1][17] Unlike air conduction, bone conduction bypasses the external auditory canal and tympanic membrane entirely, as the vibrations do not pass through the air-filled external ear. The middle ear ossicles (malleus, incus, and stapes) are not the primary mediators but may experience partial inertial involvement, particularly at certain frequencies around 1.5 kHz, where their resonance can influence transmission efficiency. However, the dominant mechanism involves the skull's direct vibration compressing the cochlear walls and displacing fluids, independent of full ossicular chain function.[13][17] Within the inner ear, the propagated vibrations cause relative motion of the basilar membrane in the cochlea, stimulating the hair cells of the organ of Corti. These mechanoreceptors transduce the mechanical energy into electrochemical signals, which are then relayed via the spiral ganglion neurons of the cochlear division of the vestibulocochlear nerve (cranial nerve VIII) to the brainstem and ultimately the auditory cortex. This process enables the perception of sound through neural activation.[1][17] The midline placement of the tuning fork on the skull, such as at the vertex or forehead, ensures bilateral and symmetric stimulation of both cochleae, as vibrations spread evenly across the skull base unless asymmetric pathology disrupts efficiency on one side. This foundational bilateral input underpins the test's ability to detect lateralization differences arising from auditory asymmetries.[1][13]Clinical interpretation
Results in normal hearing
In individuals with normal bilateral hearing, the Weber test produces no lateralization, with the sound perceived equally loud in both ears and localized to the midline of the head. This symmetric perception occurs because the vibrating tuning fork placed on the forehead transmits bone-conducted sound equally to both cochleae via the skull, without preferential routing to one side.[1][18] The primary influencing factor for this midline result is symmetric cochlear function, ensuring balanced neural processing of the sound stimulus in both auditory pathways. Minor variations, such as slight lateralization, can arise from small interaural differences in pure-tone thresholds exceeding approximately 2.5 dB, though such deviations are uncommon and the sound remains central in 96-98% of ears with normal hearing thresholds.[1][19] When performed correctly in a quiet environment with a properly activated 512-Hz tuning fork, the midline localization is consistent across repeated trials, providing a reliable baseline for distinguishing normal hearing from asymmetric pathologies in clinical assessments.[1] This outcome characterizes normal hearing in the majority of the population without auditory impairments, observed in approximately 85% of American adults aged 18 and older.[20]Results in conductive hearing loss
In conductive hearing loss, the Weber test typically results in lateralization of the sound to the affected (ipsilateral) ear, where the patient reports hearing the tuning fork vibration louder or more clearly on that side.[1] This pattern occurs because bone conduction remains relatively preserved compared to the impaired air conduction on the affected side, allowing the sound to be perceived more prominently in the ear with the conductive deficit.[1] Bone conduction bypasses middle ear issues, contributing to this relative enhancement in the impaired ear.[1] Common causes of conductive hearing loss that produce this ipsilateral lateralization include cerumen impaction (wax buildup), acute or chronic otitis media, and otosclerosis.[1] For unilateral cases, the Weber test demonstrates an accuracy of approximately 81-85% in identifying conductive hearing loss, depending on the tuning fork frequency used (e.g., 256 Hz or 512 Hz).[21] A positive ipsilateral result in the Weber test indicates the need for further evaluation of conductive pathology, such as otoscopy to inspect for wax, effusion, or tympanic membrane abnormalities, and often prompts complementary tests like the Rinne test or audiometry.[1]Results in sensorineural hearing loss
In sensorineural hearing loss, the Weber test typically results in lateralization of the sound to the unaffected or better-hearing ear, particularly in unilateral or asymmetric cases.[1][18] This occurs because the diminished function of the cochlea or auditory nerve on the affected side reduces the perception of bone-conducted sound, despite intact conduction pathways, leading to the vibrations being sensed more prominently in the contralateral normal ear due to intercochlear intensity and phase differences.[1][18] Common causes of sensorineural hearing loss that produce this lateralization pattern include presbycusis, prolonged noise exposure, Meniere's disease, labyrinthitis, ototoxic medications, and hereditary factors, making the test especially useful for identifying asymmetric neural impairments.[1][18] In such scenarios, the contralateral lateralization helps differentiate sensorineural from conductive loss when combined with other tuning fork tests like the Rinne.[1][18] Diagnostically, a contralateral result in the Weber test suggests the need for confirmatory audiometry to assess cochlear or neural thresholds, as it indicates sensorineural involvement with thresholds exceeding 25 dB and no air-bone gap.[18] However, the test's sensitivity is lower in bilateral symmetric sensorineural hearing loss, where no lateralization occurs (central perception), ranging from 60% to 78% in studies of unilateral or sudden cases but rendering it less reliable for evenly distributed bilateral deficits.[22][1]Limitations and clinical considerations
Potential errors and limitations
The Weber test is inherently subjective, as it depends on the patient's verbal report of sound perception, which can be unreliable in young children, non-verbal individuals, or those with cognitive impairments.[23][1] False results may occur in cases of bilateral symmetric hearing loss, where the sound is perceived centrally, mimicking normal hearing, or in mild unilateral losses with thresholds below approximately 20-30 dB, which often go undetected.[24] Technical errors, such as improper activation of the tuning fork leading to nonharmonic frequencies, incorrect midline placement on the forehead shifting lateralization, or interference from ambient noise, can significantly alter outcomes.[1][25][15] The test demonstrates good sensitivity (around 78%) and specificity (up to 99%) for detecting gross asymmetries in hearing loss exceeding 50 dB but performs poorly for mild or bilateral impairments and provides no quantitative measures of loss severity.[24][23]Relation to other audiological tests
The Weber test is frequently paired with the Rinne test as part of a tuning fork battery to provide a more comprehensive bedside assessment of hearing loss. While the Rinne test compares air conduction to bone conduction to identify relative deficits, the Weber test localizes the perceived sound to determine laterality, allowing clinicians to differentiate between conductive and sensorineural impairments more effectively when used together. This combination enhances diagnostic accuracy, as interpreting the Weber test in isolation can lead to errors, whereas integrating it with Rinne results offers a qualitative cross-check on hearing pathways.[1][12] In clinical diagnostics, the Weber test often precedes more advanced procedures like pure-tone audiometry or tympanometry, serving as an initial screening tool to guide subsequent evaluations. A positive Weber result indicating unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, for instance, may prompt targeted imaging such as MRI to investigate retrocochlear pathology like vestibular schwannoma, particularly in asymmetrical cases. This positioning in the diagnostic workflow allows for efficient triage, confirming or challenging findings from otoscopy before escalating to objective measures that quantify thresholds or middle ear function.[1][26][27] In contemporary audiology, the Weber test functions as an adjunct to objective assessments, such as otoacoustic emissions testing, which evaluates cochlear hair cell integrity without relying on patient response. This synergy is particularly beneficial in confirming subjective lateralization patterns against objective data, aiding in the distinction between peripheral and central auditory issues. The test remains especially valuable in resource-limited settings, where access to specialized equipment is restricted, providing reliable preliminary insights without infrastructure demands.[1][12] The Weber test's primary advantages include its rapidity, typically completed in under one minute, and negligible cost, requiring only a standard tuning fork. These attributes make it an accessible option for routine screening, with its limitations—such as subjectivity—mitigated through integration with complementary tests like the Rinne, where it corroborates conductive loss patterns and refines overall interpretation.[1][28]References
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/[neuroscience](/page/Neuroscience)/weber-test