Affiliations: [a] Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
| [b] Starkey Hearing Technologies, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA
| [c]
St. Louis Children’s Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| [d] Dizziness and Balance Center, Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Adam Thompson-Harvey, MD, Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. Tel.: +314 308 7291; E-mail: athompharvey@mcw.edu.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:The Gaze Stabilization Test (GST) identifies vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) dysfunction using a decline in target recognition with increasing head velocity, but there is no consensus on target (optotype) size above static visual acuity. OBJECTIVE:To determine the optimal optotype size above static visual acuity to be used during the GST in subjects with unilateral vestibular dysfunction and healthy individuals. METHODS:Eight subjects with unilateral vestibular dysfunction (UVD) and 19 age-matched, healthy control subjects were studied with the standard GST protocol using two optotype sizes, 0.2 and 0.3 logMAR above static visual acuity (ΔlogMAR). Maximal head velocity achieved while maintaining fixation on both optotypes was measured. Sensitivity, specificity and receiver-operator characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) analyses were performed to determine the optimal head velocity cut off point for each optotype, based on ability to identify the lesioned side of the UVD group from the control group. RESULTS:There was a significant difference in maximal head velocity between the UVD group and control group using 0.2 ΔlogMAR (p = 0.032) but not 0.3 ΔlogMAR (p = 0.061). While both targets produced similar specificities (90%) for distinguishing normal from subjects with UVD, 0.2 ΔlogMAR targets yielded higher sensitivity (75%) than 0.3 logMAR (63%) and accuracy (86% vs 80%, respectively) in detecting the lesioned side in subjects with UVD versus controls with maximal head velocities≤105 deg/s (p = 0.017). Furthermore, positive likelihood ratios were nearly twice as high when using 0.2 ΔlogMAR targets (+ LR 10) compared to 0.3 ΔlogMAR (+ LR 6.3). CONCLUSION:The 0.2 ΔlogMAR optotype demonstrated significantly superior identification of subjects with UVD, better sensitivity and positive likelihood ratios than 0.3 ΔlogMAR for detection of VOR dysfunction. Using a target size 0.2logMAR above static visual acuity (ΔlogMAR) during GST may yield better detection of VOR dysfunction to serve as a baseline for gaze stabilization rehabilitation therapy.
