谷歌眼镜与远程摄像头视频头脉冲测试设备的比较
Goggle Versus Remote-Camera Video Head Impulse Test Device Comparison.
作者信息
Janky Kristen L, Patterson Jessie N, Vandervelde Casey
机构信息
Department of Audiology, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Department of Audiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
出版信息
Ear Hear. 2024 Jul 5. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001547.
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.
目的
本研究比较了远程视频头脉冲试验（vHIT）与护目镜视频头脉冲试验的结果，以验证远程摄像头vHIT，该方法在难以进行测试的人群中越来越受欢迎。
设计
17名对照者和10名前庭功能障碍患者参与研究。每位参与者均完成了远程摄像头和护目镜vHIT。主要结果参数为半规管增益、纠正性扫视频率以及正常与异常评级。
结果
与对照组相比，前庭功能障碍组的水平和垂直半规管vHIT增益显著降低；仅在前庭功能障碍组中，远程摄像头的增益显著低于护目镜的增益。除一条垂直半规管外，两种设备对对照组和前庭半规管的分类相同。在前庭功能障碍组中，两种设备之间的代偿性扫视百分比无显著差异。
结论
这些数据证实了使用远程摄像头设备获得的结果与使用标准护目镜设备获得的结果相似。
Zotero 插件