Premium
Vibration testing: Optimizing methods to improve reliability
Author(s) -
Marcuzzi Anna,
Wainwright Alan C.,
Costa Daniel S. J.,
Wrigley Paul J.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
muscle and nerve
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.025
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1097-4598
pISSN - 0148-639X
DOI - 10.1002/mus.26373
Subject(s) - intraclass correlation , tuning fork , vibration , reliability (semiconductor) , stimulus (psychology) , amplitude , audiology , analysis of variance , standard error , physical medicine and rehabilitation , statistics , medicine , mathematics , acoustics , psychology , reproducibility , physics , power (physics) , quantum mechanics , psychotherapist
In this study we assessed the test–retest reliability of a Rydel–Seiffer tuning fork and an electronic vibrameter with hand‐held and fixed probes. Methods: Fifty healthy volunteers were assessed twice in the upper and lower limb 15 minutes apart. Reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). The effect of stimulus parameters on vibration disappearance threshold (VDT) was assessed by analysis of variance. Results: All 3 tools showed good reliability (ICCs = 0.65–0.95). Vibrameter recordings with the fixed probe showed high variability. The vibrameter was more sensitive in detecting body‐site and age differences in vibration thresholds than the tuning fork. Significantly higher VDT was observed when higher starting amplitudes and slower rates of change were used. Discussion: The hand‐held vibrameter is a superior tool to monitor vibration sense. The stimulus amplitude and rate of change are important to control as they alter VDT. Muscle Nerve 59 :229–235, 2019