Pavilionis Philip, Fenner Madison, Quigley Kristen G, Adhanom Isayas Berhe, Moran Ryan N, Passalacqua Monique, Szekely Brian, Murray Nicholas G
Neuromechanics Laboratory, School of Public Health, University Of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.
Computer Science and Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sports Health. 2025 Jul 30:19417381251355959. doi: 10.1177/19417381251355959.
The novel prototype (PRO) or virtual reality (VR) are viable methods of standardization to reduce administration variability during the Vestibular Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) test. Little is known regarding how sport-related concussion (SRC) responds to VOMS in VR.
There will be no difference between PRO and VR total symptom provocation change score (TSPCS), individual subtest symptoms, and near point convergence (NPC) distance within the first 72 hours after SRC.
Cohort study.
Level 3.
At baseline, 394 Division I student-athletes (female, 154; average age, 20.8 ± 1.4 years) completed VOMS using PRO, and 511 (female, 223; average age, 20.9 ± 6.6 years) using VR. Within 72 hours of an SRC, 29 participants (female, 18; 20.6 ± 1.4 years) completed VOMS using PRO and 22 (female, 10; 21.1 ± 1.3 years) using VR. Participants reported subjective symptoms of headache, dizziness, nausea, and fogginess before the test began and after each VOMS subtest in VR. Mann-Whitney tests assessed differences in TSPCS, NPC distance, and subtest symptoms between PRO and VR at baseline and postinjury (PI). Baseline to PI for each modality was also examined.
No significant difference was observed for TSPCS (PRO PI, 10.2 ± 11.3; VR PI, 10.5 ± 12.9; = 0.51) and NPC distance (PRO PI, 5.30 ± 6.1 cm; VR PI, 2.80 ± 0.51 cm; = 0.75) for PRO versus VR at PI. This trend continued with all subtests.
In this Division I collegiate population, symptom provocation during the VOMS in VR is not different than with PRO at PI; however, this comparison was underpowered as no a priori sample size calculation was conducted.
VR does not provoke additional symptoms PI. VR may be used as a viable method for VOMS test standardization and delivery.
新型原型（PRO）或虚拟现实（VR）是在前庭眼动筛查（VOMS）测试期间减少管理变异性的可行标准化方法。关于运动相关脑震荡（SRC）在VR中对VOMS的反应知之甚少。
在SRC后的前72小时内，PRO和VR的总症状激发变化评分（TSPCS）、各个子测试症状以及近点集合（NPC）距离之间没有差异。
队列研究。
3级。
在基线时，394名一级学生运动员（女性154名；平均年龄20.8±1.4岁）使用PRO完成VOMS，511名（女性223名；平均年龄20.9±6.6岁）使用VR完成VOMS。在SRC的72小时内，29名参与者（女性18名；20.6±1.4岁）使用PRO完成VOMS，22名（女性10名；21.1±1.3岁）使用VR完成VOMS。参与者在测试开始前以及VR中每个VOMS子测试后报告头痛、头晕、恶心和迷糊的主观症状。Mann-Whitney检验评估了基线和受伤后（PI）PRO和VR之间在TSPCS、NPC距离和子测试症状方面的差异。还检查了每种方式从基线到PI的情况。
在PI时，PRO与VR相比，TSPCS（PRO PI，10.2±11.3；VR PI，10.5±12.9；P = 0.51）和NPC距离（PRO PI，5.30±6.1厘米；VR PI，2.80±0.51厘米；P = 0.75）没有显著差异。所有子测试均呈现这一趋势。
在这一一级大学人群中，VR中VOMS期间的症状激发在PI时与PRO没有差异；然而，由于未进行先验样本量计算，该比较的效能不足。
VR在PI时不会引发额外症状。VR可作为VOMS测试标准化和实施的可行方法。
