| Literature DB >> 24632582 |
Jia-Rong Yeh1, Li-Chi Hsu2, Chen Lin1, Fu-Ling Chang3, Men-Tzung Lo1.
Abstract
Vestibular disorder is the cause of approximately 50% of dizziness in older people. The vestibular system is a critical postural control mechanism, and posturography analysis is helpful for diagnosing vestibular disorder. In clinical practice, the sensory organization test (SOT) is used to quantify postural control in an upright stance under different test conditions. However, both aging and vestibular disorder cause declines of postural control mechanisms. The aim of this study was to enhance the performance of the SOT using a nonlinear algorithm of empirical mode decomposition (EMD) and to verify the differences of effects caused by aging and/or illnesses benefits to clinical diagnosis. A total of 51 subjects belonging to 3 groups--healthy-young, healthy-elderly and dizzy--were recruited for this study. New dynamic parameters of the SOT were derived from the center of pressure (COP) signals. EMD served as an adaptive filter bank to derive the low- and high-frequency components of the COP. The effects on four ratios of sensory analysis caused by aging and vestibular disorder can be investigated for the specific frequency bands. According to our findings, new SOT parameters derived from the component with the specific frequency band more sensitively reflect the functional condition of vestibular dysfunction. Furthermore, both aging and vestibular dysfunction caused an increase in magnitude for the low-frequency component of the AP-direction COP time series. In summary, the low-frequency fluctuation reflects the stability of postural control, while the high-frequency fluctuation is sensitive to the functional condition of the sensory system. EMD successfully improved the accuracy of SOT measurements in this investigation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24632582 PMCID: PMC3954723 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091230
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Conditions of sensory organization test (SOT).
Statistical results of the original SOT reports comprising equilibrium scores (EQS) of 6 test conditions and 4 ratios of sensory analysis.
| parameter | Healthy young | Dizzy | Healthy elderly | Statistical results |
| EQS of C1 | 95.67±1.15ee | 95.44±1.35ee | 93.33±1.59yy,dd | 5.43(0.066) |
| EQS of C2 | 92.06±1.96 | 92.18±3.01 | 90.54±2.16 | 1.20(0.547) |
| EQS of C3 | 91.87±3.89 | 89.33±4.83 | 87.38±5.90 | 3.84(0.146) |
| EQS of C4 | 87.28±4.58 | 82.07±6.35 | 82.08±6.77 | 5.06(0.080) |
| EQS of C5 | 67.65±9.03 | 56.56±8.42 | 56.25±14.32yy | 5.26(0.072) |
| EQS of C6 | 70.39±13.80 | 55.07±15.23 | 62.96±9.74 | 7.97(0.019) |
| SOM | .962±.017 | .966±.026 | .970±.017 | 1.07(0.585) |
| VIS | .912±.047 | .860±.060 | .879±.064 | 4.80(0.090) |
| VEST | .707±.093dd,
| .593±.089yy | .601±.145 | 5.43(0.066) |
| PREF | 1.018±.086 | .972±.100 | 1.027±.048 | 3.32(0.190) |
“y” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the HY group.
“d” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the DZ group.
“e” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the HE group.
Single character denotes with P-value<0.05; double character denotes P-value<0.01.
Values shown in mean ± standard deviation. The statistical results of Kruskal-Wallis test are shown in K value (P value).
Figure 2Correlations between EQS and fluctuations of CoP time series in ML and AP directions, (a) compared with fluctuations in ML direction; (b) compared with fluctuations in AP direction.
“o” represents samples of the HY group; “.” represents samples of the DZ group; and “x” represents samples of the HE groups.
Figure 3Fourier spectra of AP-direction CoP time series for different groups on 6 SOT test conditions.
Arrows pointed out the spectral differences in comparing DZ group with HY and HE groups.
Figure 4Fourier spectra of IMF 4 of the AP-direction COP time series for DE group in the SOT under 6 test conditions.
Statistical results of the new SOT reports using HF fluctuation Fhf.
| Parameter | Healthy young | Dizzy | Healthy elderly | Statistical Results |
| AP-direction | ||||
| Fhf of C1 | .026±.015 | .026±.012 | .029±.013 | 1.14(0.565) |
| Fhf of C2 | .049±.033 | .041±.021 | .040±.017 | 0.45(0.799) |
| Fhf of C3 | .054±.053 | .058±.043 | .045±.018 | 1.37(0.505) |
| Fhf of C4 | .085±.060 | .103±.062 | .079±.031 | 1.85(0.396) |
| Fhf of C5 | .173±.082dd | .242±.120yy | .192±.102 | 8.87(0.012) |
| Fhf of C6 | .172±.105dd | .288±.140yy,ee | .153±.060dd | 19.62(<0.0001) |
| SOM | 1.86±0.61 | 1.65±0.59 | 1.39±0.45 | 5.17(0.075) |
| VIS | 3.38±1.17 | 4.10±1.34 | 2.87±0.75 | 7.89(0.019) |
| VEST | 7.05±1.88dd | 10.21±3.61yy,
| 6.96±2.94 | 11.16(0.004) |
| PREF | 1.01±0.29 | 1.30±0.48 | 0.90±0.16 | 10.83(0.004) |
| ML-direction | ||||
| Fhf of C1 | .016±.010 | .016±.008 | .016±.006 | 1.37(0.504) |
| Fhf of C2 | .020±.012 | .017±.009 | .040±.007 | 0.52(0.771) |
| Fhf of C3 | .021±.015 | .022±.016 | .022±.015 | 0.68(0.712) |
| Fhf of C4 | .029±.021 | .029±.016 | .030±.013 | 1.33(0.515) |
| Fhf of C5 | .038±.082 | .044±.023 | .041±.023 | 3.20(0.201) |
| Fhf of C6 | .065±.119 | .065±.057 | .039±.014 | 7.67(0.021) |
| SOM | 1.42±0.75 | 1.10±0.30 | 1.04±0.31 | 3.28(0.194) |
| VIS | 1.88±0.74 | 1.91±0.78 | 1.88±0.64 | 0.004(1.00) |
| VEST | 2.58±0.97 | 2.96±1.24 | 2.50±0.96 | 1.23(0.540) |
| PREF | 1.60±2.23 | 1.54±0.88 | 1.21±0.77 | 4.34(0.114) |
“y” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the HY group.
“d” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the DZ group.
“e” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the HE group.
Single character denotes with P-value<0.05; double character denotes P-value<0.01.
Values shown in mean ± standard deviation. The statistical results of Kruskal-Wallis test are shown in K value (P value).
Statistical results of the new SOT reports using LF fluctuation Flf.
| Parameter | Healthy young | Dizzy | Healthy elderly | Statistical results |
| AP-direction | ||||
| Flf of C1 | .079±.027 | .105±.071 | .121±.053yy | 8.93(0.012) |
| Flf of C2 | .142±.052 | .170±.129 | .171±.069 | 1.80(0.407) |
| Flf of C3 | .147±.082 | .251±.244 | .210±.101 | 6.90(0.032) |
| Flf of C4 | .220±.114dd,ee | .391±.271yy | .335±.178yy | 10.67(0.005) |
| Flf of C5 | .647±.277dd | .921±.375yy | .818±.345 | 11.14(0.004) |
| Flf of C6 | .548±.350dd,
| 1.016±.464yy,
| .686±.342 | 18.91(<0.0001) |
| SOM | 1.88±0.53 | 1.65±0.46 | 1.49±0.43 | 4.25(0.126) |
| VIS | 2.92±1.96 | 3.89±1.81 | 2.79±1.04 | 4.32(0.116) |
| VEST | 8.73±4.13 | 9.91±4.04 | 7.17±2.79 | 4.13(0.127) |
| PREF | 0.92±0.32 | 1.18±0.34 | 0.97±0.19 | 8.51(0.014) |
| ML-direction | ||||
| Flf of C1 | .050±.035 | .054±.032 | .060±.035 | 4.20(0.122) |
| Flf of C2 | .055±.038 | .063±.046 | .075±.042 | 2.54(0.280) |
| Flf of C3 | .061±.032 | .076±.066 | .084±.046 | 2.00(0.369) |
| Flf of C4 | .089±.049 | .098±.060 | .121±.059 | 2.03(0.363) |
| Flf of C5 | .121±.057 | .156±.076 | .171±.107 | 4.42(0.110) |
| Flf of C6 | .165±.139 | .179±.113 | .173±.067 | 3.07(0.215) |
| SOM | 1.28±0.87 | 1.21±0.53 | 1.23±0.48 | 0.04(0.980) |
| VIS | 2.05±0.86 | 1.92±0.86 | 2.00±0.67 | 0.28(0.870) |
| VEST | 2.73±1.07 | 3.17±1.23 | 2.83±1.22 | 0.74(0.692) |
| PREF | 1.40±1.02 | 1.25±0.56 | 1.23±0.64 | 0.61(0.736) |
“y” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the HY group.
“d” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the DZ group.
“e” denotes statistically significant difference when compared with the HE group.
Single character denotes P-value<0.05; double character denotes P-value<0.01.
Values shown in mean ± standard deviation. The statistical results of Kruskal-Wallis test are shown in K value (P value).