Comparison of EOG and VOG obtained eye movements during horizontal head impulse testing.

Introduction: Video head impulse testing is frequently used to evaluate the vestibular function. During this test, eye movement responses are recorded with video-oculography (VOG). However, the use of VOG can sometimes be challenging, especially due to pupil detection problems (e.g., blinking, droopy eyelids, etc.). Therefore, this study investigated whether electro-oculography (EOG), a technique that does not depend on pupil tracking but on the orientation of the corneoretinal potential, might be an alternative to VOG for quantifying eye movement responses during head impulse testing. Subjects and methods: Head impulse testing was performed in 19 healthy subjects without a prior history of vestibular symptoms. Horizontal eye movements were recorded simultaneously with EOG (using an EOG system) and VOG (using a VHIT system: ICS Impulse). The eye movement responses to each side of both techniques were compared using a concordance correlation coefficient (r c ), t-testing, and Bayes Factor (BF) paired t-testing. Results: EOG and VOG obtained eye movement traces that correlated well with each other during head impulse testing (average r c = 0.89). Average VOR gains obtained with EOG and VOG were not significantly different from each other for all subjects during left head impulses. However, VOG gains differed between both techniques regarding right head impulses. VOG showed significant VOR gain asymmetry (5% to the right), whereas EOG showed no significant asymmetry (1% to the right). Conclusion: This study demonstrated the use of EOG to record eye movements during head impulse testing for the first time. EOG and VOG obtained eye movement traces that correlated well with each other during horizontal head impulse testing. In addition, EOG showed smaller VOR gain asymmetry in healthy individuals, in contrast to VOG. These findings indicate that EOG might potentially be applicable as an alternative to VOG for collecting eye movement responses during head impulse testing. Trial registration number: 10192021-38 dated 19.10.21.

Optimized Signal Analysis to Quantify the Non-Linear Behaviour of the Electrically Evoked Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex in Patients with a Vestibular Implant.

INTRODUCTION: Different eye movement analysis algorithms are used in vestibular implant research to quantify the electrically evoked vestibulo-ocular reflex (eVOR). Often, standard techniques are used as applied for quantification of the natural VOR in healthy subjects and patients with vestibular loss. However, in previous research, it was observed that the morphology of the VOR and eVOR may differ substantially. In this study, it was investigated if the analysis techniques for eVOR need to be adapted to optimize a truthful quantification of the eVOR (VOR gain, orientation of the VOR axis, asymmetry, and phase shift). METHODS: "Natural" VOR responses were obtained in six age-matched healthy subjects, and eVOR responses were obtained in eight bilateral-vestibulopathy patients fitted with a vestibular implant. Three conditions were tested: "nVOR" 1-Hz sinusoidal whole-body rotations of healthy subjects in a rotatory chair, "eVOR" 1-Hz sinusoidal electrical vestibular implant stimulation without whole-body rotations in bilateral-vestibulopathy patients, and "dVOR" 1-Hz sinusoidal whole-body rotations in bilateral-vestibulopathy patients using the chair-mounted gyroscope output to drive the electrical vestibular implant stimulation (therefore also in sync 1 Hz sinusoidal). VOR outcomes were determined from the obtained VOR responses, using three different eye movement analysis paradigms: (1) peak eye velocity detection using the raw eye traces; (2) peak eye velocity detection using full-cycle sine fitting of eye traces; (3) peak eye velocity detection using half-cycle sine fitting of eye traces. RESULTS: The type of eye movement analysis algorithm significantly influenced VOR outcomes, especially regarding the VOR gain and asymmetry of the eVOR in bilateral-vestibulopathy patients fitted with a vestibular implant. Full-cycle fitting lowered VOR gain in the eVOR condition (mean difference: 0.14 ± 0.06 95% CI, p = 0.018). Half-cycle fitting lowered VOR gain in the dVOR condition (mean difference: 0.08 ± 0.04 95% CI, p = 0.009). In the eVOR condition, half-cycle fitting was able to demonstrate the asymmetry between the excitatory and inhibitory phases of stimulation in comparison with the full-cycle fitting (mean difference: 0.19 ± 0.12 95% CI, p = 0.024). The VOR axis and phase shift did not differ significantly between eye movement analysis algorithms. In healthy subjects, no clinically significant effect of eye movement analysis algorithms on VOR outcomes was observed. CONCLUSION: For the analysis of the eVOR, the excitatory and inhibitory phases of stimulation should be analysed separately due to the inherent asymmetry of the eVOR. A half-cycle fitting method can be used as a more accurate alternative for the analysis of the full-cycle traces.

Suppression Head Impulse Test (SHIMP) versus Head Impulse Test (HIMP) When Diagnosing Bilateral Vestibulopathy.

The Suppression Head Impulse (SHIMP) test was introduced as an alternative to the Head Impulse Paradigm (HIMP) to overcome challenges in VOR gain calculation due to the interference of covert saccades. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine if SHIMP, compared to HIMP, reduces covert saccades in BV patients and (2) to define the agreement on diagnosing BV between SHIMP and HIMP. First, the number of covert saccades was compared between SHIMP and HIMP. Secondly, VOR gain was compared between SHIMP and HIMP. Lastly, the agreement between SHIMP and HIMP on identifying BV (horizontal VOR gain <0.6) was evaluated. A total of 98 BV patients were included. To our knowledge, this is the largest study population on SHIMP testing in BV patients. Covert saccades were significantly reduced, and a lower VOR gain was found during SHIMP compared to HIMP (p < 0.001). However, the clinical relevance of these statistically significant differences is small. In 93% of the patients, an agreement was found between the two paradigms regarding the diagnosis of BV, and both paradigms detect BV in the vast majority of patients.

The Effect of Different Head Movement Paradigms on Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex Gain and Saccadic Eye Responses in the Suppression Head Impulse Test in Healthy Adult Volunteers.

Objective: This study aimed to identify differences in vestibulo-ocular reflex gain (VOR gain) and saccadic response in the suppression head impulse paradigm (SHIMP) between predictable and less predictable head movements, in a group of healthy subjects. It was hypothesized that higher prediction could lead to a lower VOR gain, a shorter saccadic latency, and higher grouping of saccades. Methods: Sixty-two healthy subjects were tested using the video head impulse test and SHIMPs in four conditions: active and passive head movements for both inward and outward directions. VOR gain, latency of the first saccade, and the level of saccade grouping (PR-score) were compared among conditions. Inward and active head movements were considered to be more predictable than outward and passive head movements. Results: After validation, results of 57 tested subjects were analyzed. Mean VOR gain was significantly lower for inward passive compared with outward passive head impulses (p < 0.001), and it was higher for active compared with passive head impulses (both inward and outward) (p ≤ 0.024). Mean latency of the first saccade was significantly shorter for inward active compared with inward passive (p ≤ 0.001) and for inward passive compared with outward passive head impulses (p = 0.012). Mean PR-score was only significantly higher in active outward than in active inward head impulses (p = 0.004). Conclusion: For SHIMP, a higher predictability in head movements lowered gain only in passive impulses and shortened latencies of compensatory saccades overall. For active impulses, gain calculation was affected by short-latency compensatory saccades, hindering reliable comparison with gains of passive impulses. Predictability did not substantially influence grouping of compensatory saccades.

Diagnosing vestibular hypofunction: an update.

Unilateral or bilateral vestibular hypofunction presents most commonly with symptoms of dizziness or postural imbalance and affects a large population. However, it is often missed because no quantitative testing of vestibular function is performed, or misdiagnosed due to a lack of standardization of vestibular testing. Therefore, this article reviews the current status of the most frequently used vestibular tests for canal and otolith function. This information can also be used to reach a consensus about the systematic diagnosis of vestibular hypofunction.

Restoring the High-Frequency Dynamic Visual Acuity with a Vestibular Implant Prototype in Humans.

INTRODUCTION: The vestibular implant could become a clinically useful device in the near future. This study investigated the feasibility of restoring the high-frequency dynamic visual acuity (DVA) with a vestibular implant, using the functional Head Impulse Test (fHIT). METHODS: A 72-year-old female, with bilateral vestibulopathy and fitted with a modified cochlear implant incorporating three vestibular electrodes (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria), was available for this study. Electrical stimulation was delivered with the electrode close to the lateral ampullary nerve in the left ear. The high-frequency DVA in the horizontal plane was tested with the fHIT. After training, the patient underwent six trials of fHIT, each with a different setting of the vestibular implant: (1) System OFF before stimulation; (2) System ON, baseline stimulation; (3) System ON, reversed stimulation; (4) System ON, positive stimulation; (5) System OFF, without delay after stimulation offset; and (6) System OFF, 25 min delay after stimulation offset. The percentage of correct fHIT scores for right and left head impulses were compared between trials. RESULTS: Vestibular implant stimulation improved the high-frequency DVA compared to no stimulation. This improvement was significant for "System ON, baseline stimulation" (p = 0.02) and "System ON, positive stimulation" (p < 0.001). fHIT scores changed from 19 to 44% (no stimulation) to maximum 75-94% (System ON, positive stimulation). CONCLUSION: The vestibular implant seems capable of improving the high-frequency DVA. This functional benefit of the vestibular implant illustrates again the feasibility of this device for clinical use in the near future.

The Vestibular Implant Input Interacts with Residual Natural Function.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with bilateral vestibulopathy (BV) can still have residual "natural" function. This might interact with "artificial" vestibular implant input (VI-input). When fluctuating, it could lead to vertigo attacks. Main objective was to investigate how "artificial" VI-input is integrated with residual "natural" input by the central vestibular system. This, to explore (1) whether misalignment in the response of "artificial" VI-input is sufficiently counteracted by well-aligned residual "natural" input and (2) whether "artificial" VI-input is able to influence and counteract the response to residual "natural" input, to show feasibility of a "vestibular pacemaker." MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five vestibular electrodes in four BV patients implanted with a VI were available. This involved electrodes with a predominantly horizontal response and electrodes with a predominantly vertical response. Responses to predominantly horizontal residual "natural" input and predominantly horizontal and vertical "artificial" VI-input were separately measured first. Then, inputs were combined in conditions where both would hypothetically collaborate or counteract. In each condition, subjects were subjected to 60 cycles of sinusoidal stimulation presented at 1 Hz. Gain, asymmetry, phase and angle of eye responses were calculated. Signal averaging was performed. RESULTS: Combining residual "natural" input and "artificial" VI-input resulted in an interaction in which characteristics of the resulting eye movement responses could significantly differ from those observed when responses were measured for each input separately (p < 0.0013). In the total eye response, inputs with a stronger vector magnitude seemed to have stronger weights than inputs with a lower vector magnitude, in a non-linear combination. Misalignment in the response of "artificial" VI-input was not sufficiently counteracted by well-aligned residual "natural" input. "Artificial" VI-input was able to significantly influence and counteract the response to residual "natural" input. CONCLUSION: In the acute phase of VI-activation, residual "natural" input and "artificial" VI-input interact to generate eye movement responses in a non-linear fashion. This implies that different stimulation paradigms and more complex signal processing strategies will be required unless the brain is able to optimally combine both sources of information after adaptation during chronic use. Next to this, these findings could pave the way for using the VI as "vestibular pacemaker."