Search

BACKGROUND: It has not yet been tested whether averaged gain values and the presence of pathological saccades are significantly altered by manual data selection or if data selection only done by the incorporated software detection algorithms provides a reliable data set following v-HIT testing. OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoint was to evaluate whether the averaged gain values of all six SCCs are significantly altered by manual data selection with two different v-HIT systems. METHOD: 120 subjects with previously neither vestibular nor neurological disorders underwent four separate tests of all six SCCs with either EyeSeeCam® or ICS Impulse®. All v-HIT test reports underwent manual data selection by an experienced ENT Specialist with deletion of any noise and/or artifacts. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare averaged gain values based on unsorted data with averaged gain values based on the sorted data. RESULTS: EyeSeeCam®: Horizontal SCCs: The estimate and the p-value (shown in parenthesis) for the right lateral SCC and the left lateral SCC were 0.00004 (0.95) and 0.00087 (0.70) respectively. Vertical SCCs: The estimate varied from –0.00858 to 0.00634 with p-values ranging from 0.31 to 0.78. ICS Impulse®: Horizontal SCCs: The estimate and the p-value for the right lateral SCC and the left lateral SCC were 0.00159 (0.18) and 0.00071 (0.38) respectively. Vertical SCCs: The estimate varied from 0.00217 to 0.01357 with p-values ranging from 0.00 to 0.17. Based upon the averaged gain value from the individual SCC being tested, 148 tests before and 127 after manual data selection were considered pathological. CONCLUSION: None of the two v-HIT systems revealed any clinically important effects of manual data selection. However, 21 fewer tests were considered pathological after manual data selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: International consensus on best practices for calculating and reporting vestibular function is lacking. Quantitative vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) gain using a video head impulse test (HIT) device can be calculated by various methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare different gain calculation methods and to analyze interactions between artifacts and calculation methods. METHODS: We analyzed 1300 horizontal HIT traces from 26 patients with acute vestibular syndrome and calculated the ratio between eye and head velocity at specific time points (40 ms, 60 ms) after HIT onset ('velocity gain'), ratio of velocity slopes ('regression gain'), and ratio of area under the curves after de-saccading ('position gain'). RESULTS: There was no mean difference between gain at 60 ms and position gain, both showing a significant correlation (r2 = 0.77, p < 0.001) for artifact-free recordings. All artifacts reduced high, normal-range gains modestly (range –0.06 to –0.11). The impact on abnormal, low gains was variable (depending on the artifact type) compared to artifact-free recordings. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear superiority of a single gain calculation method for video HIT testing. Artifacts cause small but significant reductions of measured VOR gains in HITs with higher, normal-range gains, regardless of calculation method. Artifacts in abnormal HITs with low gain increased measurement noise. A larger number of HITs should be performed to confirm abnormal results, regardless of calculation method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]