Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
Way of publication
- Open Access (8)
Keywords
- Nystagmus (2)
- Skew deviation (2)
- Test of skew (2)
- Vertigo (2)
- Video-oculography (2)
- Acute stroke (1)
- Acute unilateral vestibulopathy (1)
- Adaptation (1)
- Alternate cover test (1)
- Computer vision (1)
Institute
Real time computerbased visual feedback improves visual acuity in downbeat nystagmus, a pilot study
(2016)
Eye-tracking control to assess cognitive functions in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
(2016)
Age dependent normal horizontal vor gain of head impulse test as measured with video-oculography
(2015)
Comparison of human ocular torsion patterns during natural and galvanic vestibular stimulation
(2002)
Introduction
The video head impulse test (vHIT) evaluates the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). It’s usually recorded from only one eye. Newer vHIT devices allow a binocular quantification of the VOR.
Purpose (Aim)
To investigate the advantages of simultaneously recorded binocular vHIT (bvHIT) to detect the differences between the VOR gains of the adducting and the abducting eye, to define the most precise VOR measure, and to assess gaze dys/conjugacy. We aimed to establish normative values for bvHIT adducting/abducting eye VOR gains and to introduce the VOR dysconjugacy ratio (vorDR) between adducting and abducting eyes for bvHIT.
Methods
We enrolled 44 healthy adult participants in a cross-sectional, prospective study using a repeated-measures design to assess test–retest reliability. A binocular EyeSeeCam Sci 2 device was used to simultaneously record bvHIT from both eyes during impulsive head stimulation in the horizontal plane.
Results
Pooled bvHIT retest gains of the adducting eye significantly exceeded those of the abducting eye (mean (SD): 1.08 (SD = 0.06), 0.95 (SD = 0.06), respectively). Both adduction and abduction gains showed similar variability, suggesting comparable precision and therefore equal suitability for VOR asymmetry assessment. The pooled vorDR here introduced to bvHIT was 1.13 (SD = 0.05). The test–retest repeatability coefficient was 0.06.
Conclusion
Our study provides normative values reflecting the conjugacy of eye movement responses to horizontal bvHIT in healthy participants. The results were similar to a previous study using the gold-standard scleral search coil, which also reported greater VOR gains in the adducting than in the abducting eye. In analogy to the analysis of saccade conjugacy, we propose the use of a novel bvHIT dysconjugacy ratio to assess dys/conjugacy of VOR-induced eye movements. In addition, to accurately assess VOR asymmetry, and to avoid directional gain preponderance between adduction and abduction VOR-induced eye movements leading to monocular vHIT bias, we recommend using a binocular ductional VOR asymmetry index that compares the VOR gains of only the abduction or only the adduction movements of both eyes.
Motion sickness is a physiological condition that negatively impacts a person's comfort and will be an emerging condition in autonomous vehicles without proper countermeasures. The vestibular system plays a key role in the origin of motion sickness. Understanding the susceptibility and (mal) adaptive mechanisms of the highly integrated vestibular system is a prerequisite for the development of countermeasures. We hypothesize a differential association between motion sickness and vestibular function in healthy individuals with and without susceptibility for motion sickness. We quantified vestibular function by measuring the high-frequency vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) using video head impulse testing (vHIT) in 17 healthy volunteers before and after a 11 min motion sickness-inducing naturalistic stop-and-go car ride on a test track (Dekra Test Oval, Klettwitz, Germany). The cohort was classified as motion sickness susceptible (n = 11) and non-susceptible (n = 6). Six (out of 11) susceptible participants developed nausea symptoms, while a total of nine participants were free of these symptoms. The VOR gain (1) did not differ significantly between participant groups with (n = 8) and without motion sickness symptoms (n = 9), (2) did not differ significantly in the factor time before and after the car ride, and showed no interaction between symptom groups and time, as indicated by a repeated measures ANOVA (F(1,15) = 2.19, p = 0.16. Bayesian inference confirmed that there was “anecdotal evidence” for equality of gain rather than difference across groups and time (BF10 < 0.77). Our results suggest that individual differences in VOR measures or adaptation to motion sickness provocative stimuli during naturalistic stop-and-go driving cannot predict motion sickness susceptibility or the likelihood of developing motion sickness.