A meta-analysis comparing the performance of narrowband CE-Chirp and 500 Hz tone burst stimuli in recording cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP).

Due to contradictory outcomes in the literature, the aim of this meta-analysis is to verify whether the narrowband (NB) CE-Chirp stimulus (centred at 500 Hz) would produce more robust cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) responses relative to the conventional 500 Hz tone burst. The literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and the terms used were "vestibular evoked myogenic potential" and "chirp". The cVEMP parameters to be analysed were P1 latency, N1 latency, and P1-N1 amplitude. A total of 59 potential articles were obtained from the database search. Eventually, five articles were found to be eligible for the meta-analysis (with n = 222). As found, P1 and N1 latencies of cVEMP were significantly shorter for the chirp stimulus (p < 0.001), with substantially large effect sizes. On the other hand, P1-N1 amplitude values were found to be not statistically different between the two stimuli (p = 0.189), with a small effect size. It appears that there is no indication to support the superiority of the NB CE-Chirp stimulus (centred at 500 Hz) in the cVEMP testing (relative to the conventional 500 Hz tone burst). In particular, both stimuli produce comparable P1-N1 amplitude values. Even though P1 and N1 latencies are statistically shorter for the chirp stimulus, this may not reflect that it should be the preferred stimulus for recording cVEMP responses (and the reasons for this are discussed accordingly).

Test-Retest Reliability, Effects of Age and Comparison of Horizontal 2 Semicircular Canals Gain Values between Head Impulse and Suppression Head Impulse Paradigms.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.