Subjective visual vertical test in patients with chronic dizziness without abnormal findings in routine vestibular function tests

Comparison of Clinical Balance and Visual Dependence Tests in Patients With Chronic Dizziness With and Without Persistent Postural-Perceptual Dizziness: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

The diagnosis of persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is primarily based on medical history taking. Research on the value of clinical balance and visual dependence tests in identifying PPPD is scarce.

Objectives

(1) to contrast clinical balance and visual dependence tests between PPPD patients, dizzy non-PPPD patients, and healthy persons; and (2) to evaluate whether these clinical tests can help to identify PPPD in patients with chronic dizziness.

Methods

Consecutive patients with chronic dizziness (38 PPPD and 21 non-PPPD) and 69 healthy persons underwent Static Balance tests, the Timed Up and Go test, the Tandem Gait test, and the Functional Gait Assessment (FGA). Visual dependence tests included the Visual Vertigo Analog Scale (VVAS), the Rod-and-Disc test (RDT), and postural sway while facing rotating dots. Groups were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey, or independent samples t-tests. The value of the clinical tests for PPPD identification was evaluated through logistic regression and Partial Least Squares Discriminant (PLS-DA) analyses.

Results

PPPD patients had significantly higher VVAS scores than dizzy non-PPPD patients (p = 0.006). Facing rotating dots, PPPD and dizzy non-PPPD patients had increased postural sway compared to healthy persons (PPPD vs. healthy: center of pressure (COP) velocity p < 0.001, and COP area p < 0.001; but non-PPPD vs. healthy: COP velocity p = 0.116 and COP area p = 0.207). PPPD patients had no significantly increased postural sway compared to dizzy non-PPPD patients. PPPD and dizzy non-PPPD patients also scored significantly worse on balance tests compared to healthy persons (PPPD vs. healthy: for all balance tests p < 0.001; non-PPPD vs. healthy: FGA p < 0.001, for all other tests p < 0.05). Differences were insignificant in balance scores between PPPD and dizzy non-PPPD patients, or in RDT scores between the three study groups. In patients with chronic dizziness, a higher VVAS score was most associated with PPPD [odds ratio 1.04; 95% CI (1.01; 1.07); p = 0.010]. The cross-validated (CV) PLS-DA model with all clinical tests included, had fair discriminative ability (CVerror = 47%).

Conclusion

PPPD patients were more visually dependent, but did not have worse postural balance compared to dizzy non-PPPD patients. Elevated VVAS scores characterized PPPD most in patients with chronic dizziness.

Young and Older Adults Differ in Integration of Sensory Cues for Vertical Perception

Introduction

The subjective visual vertical (SVV) measures the perception of a person's spatial orientation relative to gravity. Weighted central integration of vestibular, visual, and proprioceptive inputs is essential for SVV perception. Without any visual references and minimal proprioceptive contribution, the static SVV reflects balance of the otolith organs. Normal aging is associated with bilateral and progressive decline in otolith organ function, but age-dependent effects on SVV are inconclusive. Studies on sensory reweighting for visual vertical and multisensory integration strategies reveal age-dependent differences, but most studies have included elderly participants in comparison to younger adults. The aim of this study was to compare young adults with older adults, an age group younger than the elderly.

Methods

Thirty-three young and 28 older adults (50–65 years old) adjusted a tilted line accurately to their perceived vertical. The rod's final position from true vertical was recorded as tilt error in degrees. For otolithic balance, visual vertical was recorded in the dark without any visual references. The rod and frame task (RFT) with tilted disorienting visual frames was used for creating visuovestibular conflict. We adopted Nyborg's analysis method to derive the rod and frame effect (RFE) and trial-to-trial variability measures. Rod alignment times were also analyzed.

Results

There was no age difference in signed tilts of SVV without visual reference. There was an age effect on RFE and on overall trial-to-trial variability of rod tilt, with older adults displaying larger frame effects and greater variability in rod tilts. Alignment times were longer in the tilted-frame conditions for both groups and in the older adults compared to their younger counterparts. The association between tilt accuracy and tilt precision was significant for older adults only during visuovestibular conflict, revealing an increase in RFE with an increase in tilt variability. Correlation of σ_SVV, which represents vestibular input precision, with RFE yielded exactly the same contribution of σ_SVV to the variance in RFE for both age groups.

Conclusions

Older adults have balanced otolithic input in an upright position. Increased reliance on visual cues may begin at ages younger than what is considered elderly. Increased alignment times for older adults may create a broader time window for integration of relevant and irrelevant sensory information, thus enhancing their multisensory integration. In parallel with the elderly, older adults may differ from young adults in their integration of sensory cues for visual vertical perception.

The assessment of subjective visual vertical: comparison of two psychophysical paradigms and age-related performance

Perception of the subjective visual vertical (SVV) is usually assessed by asking to subjects, in complete darkness, to adjust the position of a luminous rod that is variably tilted (i.e., by the method of adjustment [ADJ]). Conversely, the two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) method requires subjects to categorize, as tilted either clockwise (CW) or counterclockwise (CCW), stimuli that are presented on a computer screen and are variably tilted from vertical. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of these two methods and investigate age-related effects on the SVV. SVV was assessed in 102 healthy individuals, 50 women and 52 men, with a mean age of 45.7 (range 20-91), using both ADJ (ten trials, initial 1°, 2°, 4°, 8°, or 12° bar tilts both CW and CCW) and 2AFC (120 stimuli with a 1°-32° variable tilt). Also, 50 of the subjects performed the ADJ test twice, with different bar lengths. We estimated bias and threshold for the two methods, and found that neither measure differed across the methods. Age was a significant predictor of threshold (2AFC, R (2) = .141; ADJ, R (2) = .190; p < .001), implying lower sensitivity with increasing age. Moreover, the ADJ method showed a significant increase of bias when the initial tilt was farthest from vertical, whereas the rod length was irrelevant. SVV measures obtained with the ADJ and 2AFC methods were comparable, but the latter measures were more resistant to artifacts that might affect the measurement. The lower sensitivity found in older persons may have an influence on their ability to interact with the environment and may contribute to impairment of postural control.

Software for subjective visual vertical assessment: an observational cross-sectional study

Spatial orientation in relation to the gravitational axis is significantly important for the maintenance of the posture, gait and for most of the human's motor activities. The subjective visual vertical exam evaluates the individual's perception of vertical orientation.

Objectives

The aims of this study were (1) to develop a virtual system to evaluate the subjective visual vertical exam, (2) to provide a simple tool to clinical practice and (3) to assess the subjective visual vertical values of h ealthy subjects using the new software. Study Design: observational cross-sectional study.

Methods

Thirty healthy volunteers performed the subjective visual vertical exam in both static and dynamic conditions. The exam consisted in adjusting a virtual line in the vertical position using the computer mouse. For the static condition, the virtual line was projected in a white background. For the dynamic condition, black circles rotated in clockwise or counterclockwise directions. Six measurements were taken and the mean deviations in relation to the real vertical calculated.

Results

The mean values of subjective visual vertical measurements were: static −0.372°; ± 1.21; dynamic clockwise 1.53° ± 1.80 and dynamic counterclockwise −1.11° ± 2.46.

Conclusion

This software showed to be practical and accurate to be used in clinical routines.

Perception of subjective visual vertical and horizontal in patients with chronic neck pain: a cross-sectional observational study

Previous studies have shown that chronic neck pain (CNP) patients have a larger spread of perceptual errors for subjective visual vertical (SVV) than those exhibited by asymptomatic controls. The current study investigated whether this was also the case for perception of subjective visual horizontal (SVH) and whether there was a correlation between the two measurements. Fifty patients with CNP were compared with a group of 50 age- and gender-matched controls. All subjects were required to complete a test to measure SVH as well as SVV using the computerised rod and frame (CRAF) test. These tests were conducted under various frame conditions. No difference was found between the errors of the CNP and control groups in the absence of a surrounding frame. When a tilted frame was added to the CRAF test, the range of errors observed in the CNP group increased for both SVV and SVH. In particular, significantly more CNP patients fell outside the reference range of errors and a subgroup of patients, characterised by higher neck pain disability indices, was identified who demonstrated higher than expected errors for both SVV and SVH. However no conclusion could be drawn with regards to the direction of error asymmetry and laterality of pain as those patients with unilateral pain exhibited errors both towards and away from the affected area.

The use of a neck brace does not influence visual vertical perception

Subjective visual vertical (SVV) evaluates the individual's capacity to determine the vertical orientation. Using a neck brace (NB) allow volunteers' heads fixation to reduce cephalic tilt during the exam, preventing compensatory ocular torsion and erroneous influence on SVV result. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the influence of somatosensory inputs caused by a NB on the SVV. METHOD: Thirty healthy volunteers performed static and dynamic SVV: six measures with and six without the NB. RESULTS: The mean values for static SVV were -0.075º±1.15º without NB and -0.372º±1.21º with NB. For dynamic SVV in clockwise direction were 1.73º±2.31º without NB and 1.53º±1.80º with NB. For dynamic SVV in counterclockwise direction was -1.50º±2.44º without NB and -1.11º±2.46º with NB. Differences between measurements with and without the NB were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although the neck has many sensory receptors, the use of a NB does not provide sufficient afferent input to change healthy subjects' perception of visual verticality.