Audiology Programme, Centre for Rehabilitation and Special Needs Studies (iCaRehab), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Faculty of Health Sciences, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Department of Medicine, Universiti Teknologi MARA Faculty of Medicine, Selangor, Malaysia.
J Int Adv Otol. 2023 Jan;19(1):33-40. doi: 10.5152/iao.2023.21387.
This study investigates the test-retest reliability, aging effects, and differences in horizontal semicircular canals gain values between the head impulse paradigm and suppression head impulse paradigm.
Sixty healthy adult subjects aged 22-76-year-old (mean ± standard deviation=47.27 ± 18.29) participated in the head impulse paradigm and suppression head impulse paradigm using the video head impulse test. The Head impulse paradigm was used to assess all 6 semicircular canals, while suppression head impulse paradigm measured only the horizontal canals. Twenty subjects aged 22-40-year-old (25.25 ± 4.9) underwent a second session for the test-retest reliability.
There were good test-retest reliability for both measures (right horizontal head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.80; left horizontal head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.77; right anterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.86; left anterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.78; right posterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.78; left posterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.75; right horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.76; left horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.79). The test-retest reliability for suppression head impulse paradigmanti-compensatory saccade latency and amplitude were moderate (right latency, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.61; left latency, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.69; right amplitude, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.69; left amplitude, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.58). There were no significant effects of age on head impulse paradigm and suppression head impulse paradigm vestibulo-ocular reflex gain values and suppression head impulse paradigmsaccade latency. However, the saccade amplitude became smaller with increasing age, P < .001. The horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm vestibuloocular reflex gain values were significantly lower than the head impulse paradigm for both sides (right, P = .004; left, P = .004).
There was good test-retest reliability for both measures, and the gain values stabilized with age. However, suppression head impulse paradigm anti-compensatory saccade latency and amplitude had lower test-retest reliability than the gain. The suppression head impulse paradigm vestibulo-ocular reflex gain was lower than the head impulse paradigm and its anti-compensatory saccade amplitude reduced with increasing age.
本研究旨在探讨眼震检查仪测试和抑制性眼震检查仪测试中水平半规管增益值的重测信度、增龄效应和差异。
60 名年龄在 22-76 岁之间（平均±标准差=47.27±18.29 岁）的健康成年人参与了使用视频眼震检查仪进行的眼震检查仪测试和抑制性眼震检查仪测试。眼震检查仪测试用于评估所有 6 个半规管，而抑制性眼震检查仪测试仅测量水平半规管。20 名年龄在 22-40 岁之间的受试者（25.25±4.9 岁）进行了第二次测试以评估重测信度。
两种测量方法的重测信度均较好（右侧水平眼震检查仪测试，组内相关系数=0.80；左侧水平眼震检查仪测试，组内相关系数=0.77；右侧前向眼震检查仪测试，组内相关系数=0.86；左侧前向眼震检查仪测试，组内相关系数=0.78；右侧后向眼震检查仪测试，组内相关系数=0.78；左侧后向眼震检查仪测试，组内相关系数=0.75；右侧水平抑制性眼震检查仪测试，组内相关系数=0.76；左侧水平抑制性眼震检查仪测试，组内相关系数=0.79）。抑制性眼震检查仪测试的反补偿性扫视潜伏期和幅度的重测信度为中等（右侧潜伏期，组内相关系数=0.61；左侧潜伏期，组内相关系数=0.69；右侧幅度，组内相关系数=0.69；左侧幅度，组内相关系数=0.58）。年龄对眼震检查仪测试和抑制性眼震检查仪测试前庭眼反射增益值和抑制性眼震检查仪测试扫视潜伏期无显著影响。然而，扫视幅度随着年龄的增长而减小，P<0.001。两侧水平抑制性眼震检查仪测试的前庭眼反射增益值均显著低于眼震检查仪测试（右侧，P=0.004；左侧，P=0.004）。
两种测量方法的重测信度均较好，增益值随年龄稳定。然而，抑制性眼震检查仪测试的反补偿性扫视潜伏期和幅度的重测信度低于增益值。抑制性眼震检查仪测试的前庭眼反射增益值低于眼震检查仪测试，且其反补偿性扫视幅度随年龄增长而减小。
