Kristen L Janky, Jessie N Patterson, Casey Vandervelde
{"title":"护目镜与遥控摄像机视频头脉冲测试设备比较。","authors":"Kristen L Janky, Jessie N Patterson, Casey Vandervelde","doi":"10.1097/AUD.0000000000001547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study compared remote versus goggle video head impulse testing (vHIT) outcomes to validate remote-camera vHIT, which is gaining popularity in difficult to test populations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Seventeen controls and 10 individuals with vestibular dysfunction participated. Each participant completed remote-camera and goggle vHIT. The main outcome parameters were canal gain, frequency of corrective saccades, and a normal versus abnormal rating.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Horizontal and vertical canal vHIT gain was significantly lower in the vestibular compared with the control group; remote-camera gains were significantly lower compared with goggle gain for the vestibular group only. The devices categorized control versus vestibular canals identically except for one vertical canal. In the vestibular group, there was not a significant difference in the percentage of compensatory saccades between devices.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data provide validation that results obtained with a remote-camera device are similar to those obtained using a standard goggle device.</p>","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Goggle Versus Remote-Camera Video Head Impulse Test Device Comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Kristen L Janky, Jessie N Patterson, Casey Vandervelde\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AUD.0000000000001547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study compared remote versus goggle video head impulse testing (vHIT) outcomes to validate remote-camera vHIT, which is gaining popularity in difficult to test populations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Seventeen controls and 10 individuals with vestibular dysfunction participated. Each participant completed remote-camera and goggle vHIT. The main outcome parameters were canal gain, frequency of corrective saccades, and a normal versus abnormal rating.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Horizontal and vertical canal vHIT gain was significantly lower in the vestibular compared with the control group; remote-camera gains were significantly lower compared with goggle gain for the vestibular group only. The devices categorized control versus vestibular canals identically except for one vertical canal. In the vestibular group, there was not a significant difference in the percentage of compensatory saccades between devices.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data provide validation that results obtained with a remote-camera device are similar to those obtained using a standard goggle device.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ear and Hearing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ear and Hearing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001547\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ear and Hearing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001547","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Goggle Versus Remote-Camera Video Head Impulse Test Device Comparison.
Objectives: This study compared remote versus goggle video head impulse testing (vHIT) outcomes to validate remote-camera vHIT, which is gaining popularity in difficult to test populations.
Design: Seventeen controls and 10 individuals with vestibular dysfunction participated. Each participant completed remote-camera and goggle vHIT. The main outcome parameters were canal gain, frequency of corrective saccades, and a normal versus abnormal rating.
Results: Horizontal and vertical canal vHIT gain was significantly lower in the vestibular compared with the control group; remote-camera gains were significantly lower compared with goggle gain for the vestibular group only. The devices categorized control versus vestibular canals identically except for one vertical canal. In the vestibular group, there was not a significant difference in the percentage of compensatory saccades between devices.
Conclusion: These data provide validation that results obtained with a remote-camera device are similar to those obtained using a standard goggle device.
期刊介绍：
From the basic science of hearing and balance disorders to auditory electrophysiology to amplification and the psychological factors of hearing loss, Ear and Hearing covers all aspects of auditory and vestibular disorders. This multidisciplinary journal consolidates the various factors that contribute to identification, remediation, and audiologic and vestibular rehabilitation. It is the one journal that serves the diverse interest of all members of this professional community -- otologists, audiologists, educators, and to those involved in the design, manufacture, and distribution of amplification systems. The original articles published in the journal focus on assessment, diagnosis, and management of auditory and vestibular disorders.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
