继续旋转?听觉和体感线索对转椅测试的影响

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
American Journal of Audiology Pub Date : 2024-09-03 Epub Date: 2024-06-19 DOI:10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00017
Natalie Seidl, Melissa Newell, Alexander L Francis
{"title":"继续旋转?听觉和体感线索对转椅测试的影响","authors":"Natalie Seidl, Melissa Newell, Alexander L Francis","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing realistic auditory or somatosensory cues to spatial location would affect measures of vestibulo-ocular reflex gain in a rotary chair testing (RCT) context.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This was a fully within-subject design. Thirty young adults age 18-30 years (16 men, 14 women by self-identification) completed sinusoidal harmonic acceleration testing in a rotary chair under five different conditions, each at three rotational frequencies (0.01, 0.08, and 0.32 Hz). We recorded gain as the ratio of the amplitude of eye movement to chair movement using standard clinical procedures. The five conditions consisted of two without spatial information (silence, tasking via headphones) and three with either auditory (refrigerator sound, tasking via speaker) or somatosensory (fan) information. Two of the conditions also included mental tasking (tasking via headphones, tasking via speaker) and differed only in terms of the spatial localizability of the verbal instructions. We used linear mixed-effects modeling to compare pairs of conditions, specifically examining the effects of the availability of spatial cues in the environment. This study was preregistered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/2gqcf/).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed significant effects of frequency in all conditions (<i>p</i> < .05), but the only pairs of conditions that were significantly different were those including tasking in one condition but not the other (e.g., tasking via headphones vs. silence). Post hoc equivalence testing showed that the lack of significance in the other comparisons could be confirmed as not meaningfully different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that the presence of externally localizable sensory information, whether auditory or somatosensory, does not affect measures of gain in RCT to any relevant degree. However, these findings also contribute to the increasing body of evidence suggesting that mental engagement (\"tasking\") does increase gain whether or not it is provided via localizable instructions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"850-862"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Just Keep Spinning? The Impact of Auditory and Somatosensory Cues on Rotary Chair Testing.\",\"authors\":\"Natalie Seidl, Melissa Newell, Alexander L Francis\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing realistic auditory or somatosensory cues to spatial location would affect measures of vestibulo-ocular reflex gain in a rotary chair testing (RCT) context.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This was a fully within-subject design. Thirty young adults age 18-30 years (16 men, 14 women by self-identification) completed sinusoidal harmonic acceleration testing in a rotary chair under five different conditions, each at three rotational frequencies (0.01, 0.08, and 0.32 Hz). We recorded gain as the ratio of the amplitude of eye movement to chair movement using standard clinical procedures. The five conditions consisted of two without spatial information (silence, tasking via headphones) and three with either auditory (refrigerator sound, tasking via speaker) or somatosensory (fan) information. Two of the conditions also included mental tasking (tasking via headphones, tasking via speaker) and differed only in terms of the spatial localizability of the verbal instructions. We used linear mixed-effects modeling to compare pairs of conditions, specifically examining the effects of the availability of spatial cues in the environment. This study was preregistered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/2gqcf/).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed significant effects of frequency in all conditions (<i>p</i> < .05), but the only pairs of conditions that were significantly different were those including tasking in one condition but not the other (e.g., tasking via headphones vs. silence). Post hoc equivalence testing showed that the lack of significance in the other comparisons could be confirmed as not meaningfully different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that the presence of externally localizable sensory information, whether auditory or somatosensory, does not affect measures of gain in RCT to any relevant degree. However, these findings also contribute to the increasing body of evidence suggesting that mental engagement (\\\"tasking\\\") does increase gain whether or not it is provided via localizable instructions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Audiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"850-862\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00017\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在确定在转椅测试(RCT)中,提供真实的听觉或体觉空间位置线索是否会影响前庭-眼反射增益的测量:这是一个完全的被试内设计。30名18-30岁的年轻人(16名男性,14名女性,根据自我认同)在五种不同的条件下,分别以三种旋转频率(0.01、0.08和0.32赫兹)在旋转椅上完成了正弦谐波加速度测试。我们使用标准临床程序记录增益,即眼球运动幅度与椅子运动幅度之比。五个条件包括两个没有空间信息的条件(安静,通过耳机完成任务)和三个有听觉信息(冰箱声音,通过扬声器完成任务)或体感信息(风扇)的条件。其中两个条件还包括心理任务(通过耳机布置任务,通过扬声器布置任务),区别仅在于口头指令的空间定位性。我们使用线性混合效应模型来比较两组条件,特别是考察了环境中空间线索的可用性所产生的影响。本研究已在开放科学框架(https://osf.io/2gqcf/)上进行了预先注册:结果表明,频率在所有条件下都有显着影响(p < .05),但唯一有显着差异的成对条件是在一种条件下有任务,而在另一种条件下没有(例如,通过耳机与静音进行任务分配)。事后等效测试表明,其他比较的不显著性可以被确认为没有意义上的差异:这些研究结果表明,外部可定位的感觉信息(无论是听觉信息还是体感信息)并不会在任何相关程度上影响 RCT 的增益测量。不过,这些研究结果也为越来越多的证据做出了贡献,这些证据表明,无论是否通过可定位的指令提供,心理参与("任务")确实会增加收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Just Keep Spinning? The Impact of Auditory and Somatosensory Cues on Rotary Chair Testing.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing realistic auditory or somatosensory cues to spatial location would affect measures of vestibulo-ocular reflex gain in a rotary chair testing (RCT) context.

Method: This was a fully within-subject design. Thirty young adults age 18-30 years (16 men, 14 women by self-identification) completed sinusoidal harmonic acceleration testing in a rotary chair under five different conditions, each at three rotational frequencies (0.01, 0.08, and 0.32 Hz). We recorded gain as the ratio of the amplitude of eye movement to chair movement using standard clinical procedures. The five conditions consisted of two without spatial information (silence, tasking via headphones) and three with either auditory (refrigerator sound, tasking via speaker) or somatosensory (fan) information. Two of the conditions also included mental tasking (tasking via headphones, tasking via speaker) and differed only in terms of the spatial localizability of the verbal instructions. We used linear mixed-effects modeling to compare pairs of conditions, specifically examining the effects of the availability of spatial cues in the environment. This study was preregistered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/2gqcf/).

Results: Results showed significant effects of frequency in all conditions (p < .05), but the only pairs of conditions that were significantly different were those including tasking in one condition but not the other (e.g., tasking via headphones vs. silence). Post hoc equivalence testing showed that the lack of significance in the other comparisons could be confirmed as not meaningfully different.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that the presence of externally localizable sensory information, whether auditory or somatosensory, does not affect measures of gain in RCT to any relevant degree. However, these findings also contribute to the increasing body of evidence suggesting that mental engagement ("tasking") does increase gain whether or not it is provided via localizable instructions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Audiology
American Journal of Audiology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
163
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信