OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To improve the test standards for a version of the Romberg test and to determine whether measuring kinematic variables improved its utility for screening. STUDY DESIGN: Healthy controls and patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, postoperative acoustic neuroma resection, and chronic peripheral unilateral weakness were compared. METHODS: Subjects wore Bluetooth-enabled inertial motion units while standing on the floor or medium-density, compliant foam, with eyes open or closed, with head still or moving in pitch or yaw. Dependent measures were time to perform each test condition, number of head movements made, and kinematic variables. RESULTS: Patients and controls did not differ significantly with eyes open or with eyes closed while on the floor. With eyes closed, on foam, some significant differences were found between patients and controls, especially for subjects older than 59 years. Head movement conditions were more challenging than with the head still. Significantly fewer patients than controls could make enough head movements to obtain kinematic measures. Kinematics indicated that lateral balance control is significantly reduced in these patients compared to controls. Receiver operator characteristics and sensitivity/specificity analyses showed moderately good differences with older subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Tests on foam with eyes closed, with head still or moving, may be useful as part of a screening battery for vestibular impairments, especially for older people. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To improve the test standards for a version of the Romberg test and to determine whether measuring kinematic variables improved its utility for screening. STUDY DESIGN: Healthy controls and patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, postoperative acoustic neuroma resection, and chronic peripheral unilateral weakness were compared. METHODS: Subjects wore Bluetooth-enabled inertial motion units while standing on the floor or medium-density, compliant foam, with eyes open or closed, with head still or moving in pitch or yaw. Dependent measures were time to perform each test condition, number of head movements made, and kinematic variables. RESULTS:Patients and controls did not differ significantly with eyes open or with eyes closed while on the floor. With eyes closed, on foam, some significant differences were found between patients and controls, especially for subjects older than 59 years. Head movement conditions were more challenging than with the head still. Significantly fewer patients than controls could make enough head movements to obtain kinematic measures. Kinematics indicated that lateral balance control is significantly reduced in these patients compared to controls. Receiver operator characteristics and sensitivity/specificity analyses showed moderately good differences with older subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Tests on foam with eyes closed, with head still or moving, may be useful as part of a screening battery for vestibular impairments, especially for older people. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b.
Authors: Ramón Balaguer García; Salvador Pitarch Corresa; José María Baydal Bertomeu; María M Morales Suárez-Varela Journal: Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp Date: 2012-05-24
Authors: Gary P Jacobson; Devin L McCaslin; Erin G Piker; Jill Gruenwald; Sarah Grantham; Lauren Tegel Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Ajitkumar P Mulavara; Helen S Cohen; Brian T Peters; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Jacob J Bloomberg Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Helen S Cohen; Christopher Cox; Gayle Springer; Howard J Hoffman; Mary A Young; Joseph B Margolick; Michael W Plankey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Helen S Cohen; Ajitkumar P Mulavara; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Brian T Peters; Jacob J Bloomberg; Valory N Pavlik Journal: South Med J Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 0.954
Authors: Helen S Cohen; Ajitkumar P Mulavara; Jasmine Stitz; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Susan P Williams; Brian T Peters; Jacob J Bloomberg Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Yevgeniy R Semenov; Robin T Bigelow; Qian-Li Xue; Sascha du Lac; Yuri Agrawal Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Helen S Cohen; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Natalia A Ricci; June Kampangkaew; Robert A Williamson Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Andrew P Lapointe; Jessica N Ritchie; Rachel V Vitali; Joel S Burma; Ateyeh Soroush; Ibukunoluwa Oni; Jeff F Dunn Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.576