| Literature DB >> 22470364 |
Stefano Ramat1, Silvia Colnaghi, Andreas Boehler, Serena Astore, Paola Falco, Marco Mandalà, Daniele Nuti, Paolo Colagiorgio, Maurizio Versino.
Abstract
We developed the head impulse testing device (HITD) based on an inertial sensing system allowing to investigate the functional performance of the rotational vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) by testing its gaze stabilization ability, independently from the subject's visual acuity, in response to head impulses at different head angular accelerations ranging from 2000 to 7000 deg/s(2). HITD was initially tested on 22 normal subjects, and a method to compare the results from a single subject (patient) with those from controls was set up. As a pilot study, we tested the HITD in 39 dizzy patients suffering, non-acutely, from different kinds of vestibular disorders. The results obtained with the HITD were comparable with those from the clinical head impulse test (HIT), but an higher number of abnormalities was detectable by HITD in the central vestibular disorders group. The HITD appears to be a promising tool for detecting abnormal VOR performance while providing information on the functional performance of the rotational VOR, and can provide a valuable assistance to the clinical evaluation of patients with vestibular disorders.Entities:
Keywords: VOR testing; dynamic visual acuity; head impulse test; rVOR; semicircular canals
Year: 2012 PMID: 22470364 PMCID: PMC3311056 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2012.00039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Representative example of visual stimulus timing with respect to head angular velocity during a test performed with the HITD. Black traces: head angular velocities recorded during individual head impulses on one subject. Gray traces: visual stimulus appearance timing recorded by the photodiode applied to the testing screen. Low value indicates no stimulus; high value indicates the stimulus is displayed on screen.
Figure 2Box plot representation of the distribution of correct answers ratios per acceleration bin, in control subjects. Each acceleration bin is labeled using the lower acceleration threshold, e.g., the 2000 deg/s2 bin includes accelerations in (2000, 2999). In each box plot the thick horizontal line indicates the median of the sample, and the thin line at the lower extremity of the box the 25th percentile. Whiskers extend to the extreme data points considered in the distribution, while crosses indicate individual outlier data points.
Figure 3Box plot representation of the distribution of correct answers ratios per acceleration bin, in patients. Data is represented as in Figure 2, with the addition that the thin line at the upper extremity of the box represents the 75th percentile.
HITD vs HIT results based on individual bin approach.
| Side | Affected | Healthy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HITD/HIT | ++ | +− | −+ | – | ++ | +− | −+ | – |
| Vestibular neuritis | 3 (42) | 1 (14) | 2 (28) | 1 (14) | 2 (28) | 2 (28) | 0 | 3 (42) |
| Ménière | 2 (40) | 2 (40) | 0 | 1(20) | 1 (20) | 3 (60) | 0 | 1 (20) |
| Unilateral deficit | 8 (57) | 4 (28) | 0 | 2 (14) | 4 (28) | 5 (35) | 0 | 5 (35) |
| Bilateral deficit | 9 (63) | 2 (14) | 2 (14) | 1 (7) | ||||
| Central | 0 | 6 (50) | 0 | 6 (50) | ||||
The table shows for each of the different diagnostic groups the number (and, in parentheses, the percentage) of subjects with an abnormal (positive) or normal (negative) HITD (first + or − digit) or HIT (second + or − digit) test both for the affected and the healthy side. For the Bilateral deficit and the Central groups both sides were considered to be as potentially affected. HITD was evaluated by using the individual bin approach, namely the patient was compared to controls for each of the six acceleration bins and was considered abnormal if HITD was abnormal for at least one bin.
HITD vs HIT results based on pooled bin approarch.
| Side | Affected | Healthy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HITD/HIT | ++ | +− | −+ | – | ++ | +− | −+ | – |
| Vestibular neuritis | 3 (42) | 1 (14) | 2 (28) | 1 (4) | 2 (28) | 1 (14) | 0 | 4 (56) |
| Ménière | 2 (40) | 2 (40) | 0 | 1(20) | 1 (20) | 2 (40) | 0 | 2 (40) |
| Unilateral deficit | 5 (35) | 4 (28) | 3 (21) | 2 (21) | 3 (21) | 1 (7) | 1 (7) | 9 (63) |
| Bilateral deficit | 9 (63) | 3 (21) | 2 (14) | 0 | ||||
| Central | 0 | 4 (33) | 0 | 8 (66) | ||||
The table shows for each of the different diagnostic groups the number (and, in parentheses, the percentage) of subjects with an abnormal (positive) or normal (negative) HITD (first + or − digit) or HIT (second + or − digit) test both for the affected and the healthy side. For the Bilateral deficit and the Central groups both sides were considered to be as potentially affected. HITD was evaluated by using the pooled bin approach, namely the patient was compared to controls after all the responses from all the different acceleration bins were pooled together.
HITD vs HIT comparison using individual bin approach and Fisher’s exact test.
| Side | Affected | Healthy | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HITD | HIT | HITD | HIT | |||||||
| + | − | + | − | + | − | + | − | |||
| Vestibular neuritis | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0.367 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0.367 |
| Ménière | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.238 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0.099 |
| Unilateral deficit | 12 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 0.088 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 10 | 0.053 |
| Bilateral deficit | 11 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 0.351 | |||||
| Central | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 | 0.007 | |||||
The table compares the HITD and the HIT in terms of the number of subjects with a positive (abnormal) or a negative (normal) test, for each diagnostic group and both for the affected and the healthy sides. For the Bilateral deficit and the Central groups both sides were considered to be as potentially affected. HITD was evaluated by using the individual bin approach, namely the patient was compared to controls for each of the six acceleration bins and was considered abnormal if HITD was abnormal for at least one bin. The .
HITD vs HIT comparison using pooled bin approach and Fisher’s exact test.
| Side | Affected | Healthy | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HITD | HIT | HITD | HIT | |||||||
| + | − | + | − | + | − | + | − | |||
| Vestibular neuritis | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0.367 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 0.244 |
| Ménière | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.238 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0.238 |
| Unilateral deficit | 9 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 0.279 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 0.322 |
| Bilateral deficit | 12 | 2 | 11 | 3 | 0.337 | |||||
| Central | 4 | 8 | 0 | 12 | 0.046 | |||||
The table compares the HITD and the HIT in terms of the number of subjects with a positive (abnormal) or a negative (normal) test., for each diagnostic group and both for the affected and the healthy sides. For the Bilateral deficit and the Central groups both sides were considered to be as potentially affected. HITD was evaluated by using the pooled bin approach, namely the patient was compared to controls after all the responses from all the different acceleration bins were pooled together. The .