[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.12.79. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Regular Departments
November 1962

Letters to the Editor

Arch Otolaryngol. 1962;76(5):482-483. doi:10.1001/archotol.1962.00740050494025

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

I am pleased to hear that neurosensory is the usage adopted by the A.M.A. and the Archives.

I would like to call your attention, however, to a possible flaw in Dorland's definition. As most people use neurosensory, they mean that there is an affection of both the nerve and the end-organ and I believe that this is the implication they are trying to put across when they use some other term, such as sensori-neural. The use of neurosensory, meaning affection of the nerve fiber and the end-organ both, is the accepted usage at the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology in their Transactions, and by the Editorial Staff at the Mayo Clinic and by the Laryngoscope. Dorland, however, defines neurosensory as an affection of the nerve fiber, and does not mention end-organ involvement.

If the inclusive usage would be accepted by the A.M.A., I think the idea of a letter

×