Effects of device on video head impulse test (vHIT) gain

Kristen L Janky, Jessie N. Patterson, Neil T. Shepard, Megan L.A. Thomas, Julie A. Honaker

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Numerous video head impulse test (vHIT) devices are available commercially; however, gain is not calculated uniformly. An evaluation of these devices/algorithms in healthy controls and patients with vestibular loss is necessary for comparing and synthesizing work that utilizes different devices and gain calculations. Purpose: Using three commercially available vHIT devices/algorithms, the purpose of the present study was to compare: (1) horizontal canal vHIT gain among devices/algorithms in normal control subjects; (2) the effects of age on vHIT gain for each device/algorithm in normal control subjects; and (3) the clinical performance of horizontal canal vHIT gain between devices/algorithms for differentiating normal versus abnormal vestibular function. Research Design: Prospective. Study Sample: Sixty-one normal control adult subjects (range 20-78) and eleven adults with unilateral or bilateral vestibular loss (range 32-79). Data Collection and Analysis: vHIT was administered using three different devices/algorithms, randomized in order, for each subject on the same day: (1) Impulse (Otometrics, Schaumberg, IL; monocular eye recording, right eye only; using area under the curve gain), (2) EyeSeeCam (Interacoustics, Denmark; monocular eye recording, left eye only; using instantaneous gain), and (3) VisualEyes (MicroMedical, Chatham, IL, binocular eye recording; using position gain). Results: There was a significant mean difference in vHIT gain among devices/algorithms for both the normal control and vestibular loss groups. vHIT gain was significantly larger in the ipsilateral direction of the eye used to measure gain; however, in spite of the significant mean differences in vHIT gain among devices/algorithms and the significant directional bias, classification of "normal" versus "abnormal" gain is consistent across all compared devices/algorithms, with the exception of instantaneous gain at 40 msec. There was not an effect of age on vHIT gain up to 78 years regardless of the device/algorithm. Conclusions: These findings support that vHIT gain is significantly different between devices/algorithms, suggesting that care should be taken when making direct comparisons of absolute gain values between devices/algorithms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)778-785
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Audiology
Volume28
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

Head Impulse Test
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Aging
  • Vestibular
  • Video head impulse test

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Janky, K. L., Patterson, J. N., Shepard, N. T., Thomas, M. L. A., & Honaker, J. A. (2017). Effects of device on video head impulse test (vHIT) gain. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 28(9), 778-785. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16138

Effects of device on video head impulse test (vHIT) gain. / Janky, Kristen L; Patterson, Jessie N.; Shepard, Neil T.; Thomas, Megan L.A.; Honaker, Julie A.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 28, No. 9, 01.10.2017, p. 778-785.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Janky, KL, Patterson, JN, Shepard, NT, Thomas, MLA & Honaker, JA 2017, 'Effects of device on video head impulse test (vHIT) gain', Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 778-785. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16138
Janky, Kristen L ; Patterson, Jessie N. ; Shepard, Neil T. ; Thomas, Megan L.A. ; Honaker, Julie A. / Effects of device on video head impulse test (vHIT) gain. In: Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2017 ; Vol. 28, No. 9. pp. 778-785.
@article{5f31682f854643b5a3eb0ab90e6beb7d,
title = "Effects of device on video head impulse test (vHIT) gain",
abstract = "Background: Numerous video head impulse test (vHIT) devices are available commercially; however, gain is not calculated uniformly. An evaluation of these devices/algorithms in healthy controls and patients with vestibular loss is necessary for comparing and synthesizing work that utilizes different devices and gain calculations. Purpose: Using three commercially available vHIT devices/algorithms, the purpose of the present study was to compare: (1) horizontal canal vHIT gain among devices/algorithms in normal control subjects; (2) the effects of age on vHIT gain for each device/algorithm in normal control subjects; and (3) the clinical performance of horizontal canal vHIT gain between devices/algorithms for differentiating normal versus abnormal vestibular function. Research Design: Prospective. Study Sample: Sixty-one normal control adult subjects (range 20-78) and eleven adults with unilateral or bilateral vestibular loss (range 32-79). Data Collection and Analysis: vHIT was administered using three different devices/algorithms, randomized in order, for each subject on the same day: (1) Impulse (Otometrics, Schaumberg, IL; monocular eye recording, right eye only; using area under the curve gain), (2) EyeSeeCam (Interacoustics, Denmark; monocular eye recording, left eye only; using instantaneous gain), and (3) VisualEyes (MicroMedical, Chatham, IL, binocular eye recording; using position gain). Results: There was a significant mean difference in vHIT gain among devices/algorithms for both the normal control and vestibular loss groups. vHIT gain was significantly larger in the ipsilateral direction of the eye used to measure gain; however, in spite of the significant mean differences in vHIT gain among devices/algorithms and the significant directional bias, classification of {"}normal{"} versus {"}abnormal{"} gain is consistent across all compared devices/algorithms, with the exception of instantaneous gain at 40 msec. There was not an effect of age on vHIT gain up to 78 years regardless of the device/algorithm. Conclusions: These findings support that vHIT gain is significantly different between devices/algorithms, suggesting that care should be taken when making direct comparisons of absolute gain values between devices/algorithms.",
keywords = "Aging, Vestibular, Video head impulse test",
author = "Janky, {Kristen L} and Patterson, {Jessie N.} and Shepard, {Neil T.} and Thomas, {Megan L.A.} and Honaker, {Julie A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3766/jaaa.16138",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "778--785",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Audiology",
issn = "1050-0545",
publisher = "American Academy of Audiology",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of device on video head impulse test (vHIT) gain

AU - Janky, Kristen L

AU - Patterson, Jessie N.

AU - Shepard, Neil T.

AU - Thomas, Megan L.A.

AU - Honaker, Julie A.

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Background: Numerous video head impulse test (vHIT) devices are available commercially; however, gain is not calculated uniformly. An evaluation of these devices/algorithms in healthy controls and patients with vestibular loss is necessary for comparing and synthesizing work that utilizes different devices and gain calculations. Purpose: Using three commercially available vHIT devices/algorithms, the purpose of the present study was to compare: (1) horizontal canal vHIT gain among devices/algorithms in normal control subjects; (2) the effects of age on vHIT gain for each device/algorithm in normal control subjects; and (3) the clinical performance of horizontal canal vHIT gain between devices/algorithms for differentiating normal versus abnormal vestibular function. Research Design: Prospective. Study Sample: Sixty-one normal control adult subjects (range 20-78) and eleven adults with unilateral or bilateral vestibular loss (range 32-79). Data Collection and Analysis: vHIT was administered using three different devices/algorithms, randomized in order, for each subject on the same day: (1) Impulse (Otometrics, Schaumberg, IL; monocular eye recording, right eye only; using area under the curve gain), (2) EyeSeeCam (Interacoustics, Denmark; monocular eye recording, left eye only; using instantaneous gain), and (3) VisualEyes (MicroMedical, Chatham, IL, binocular eye recording; using position gain). Results: There was a significant mean difference in vHIT gain among devices/algorithms for both the normal control and vestibular loss groups. vHIT gain was significantly larger in the ipsilateral direction of the eye used to measure gain; however, in spite of the significant mean differences in vHIT gain among devices/algorithms and the significant directional bias, classification of "normal" versus "abnormal" gain is consistent across all compared devices/algorithms, with the exception of instantaneous gain at 40 msec. There was not an effect of age on vHIT gain up to 78 years regardless of the device/algorithm. Conclusions: These findings support that vHIT gain is significantly different between devices/algorithms, suggesting that care should be taken when making direct comparisons of absolute gain values between devices/algorithms.

AB - Background: Numerous video head impulse test (vHIT) devices are available commercially; however, gain is not calculated uniformly. An evaluation of these devices/algorithms in healthy controls and patients with vestibular loss is necessary for comparing and synthesizing work that utilizes different devices and gain calculations. Purpose: Using three commercially available vHIT devices/algorithms, the purpose of the present study was to compare: (1) horizontal canal vHIT gain among devices/algorithms in normal control subjects; (2) the effects of age on vHIT gain for each device/algorithm in normal control subjects; and (3) the clinical performance of horizontal canal vHIT gain between devices/algorithms for differentiating normal versus abnormal vestibular function. Research Design: Prospective. Study Sample: Sixty-one normal control adult subjects (range 20-78) and eleven adults with unilateral or bilateral vestibular loss (range 32-79). Data Collection and Analysis: vHIT was administered using three different devices/algorithms, randomized in order, for each subject on the same day: (1) Impulse (Otometrics, Schaumberg, IL; monocular eye recording, right eye only; using area under the curve gain), (2) EyeSeeCam (Interacoustics, Denmark; monocular eye recording, left eye only; using instantaneous gain), and (3) VisualEyes (MicroMedical, Chatham, IL, binocular eye recording; using position gain). Results: There was a significant mean difference in vHIT gain among devices/algorithms for both the normal control and vestibular loss groups. vHIT gain was significantly larger in the ipsilateral direction of the eye used to measure gain; however, in spite of the significant mean differences in vHIT gain among devices/algorithms and the significant directional bias, classification of "normal" versus "abnormal" gain is consistent across all compared devices/algorithms, with the exception of instantaneous gain at 40 msec. There was not an effect of age on vHIT gain up to 78 years regardless of the device/algorithm. Conclusions: These findings support that vHIT gain is significantly different between devices/algorithms, suggesting that care should be taken when making direct comparisons of absolute gain values between devices/algorithms.

KW - Aging

KW - Vestibular

KW - Video head impulse test

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030308985&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030308985&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3766/jaaa.16138

DO - 10.3766/jaaa.16138

M3 - Review article

VL - 28

SP - 778

EP - 785

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

SN - 1050-0545

IS - 9

ER -