Search

This paper is concerned mainly with the assumptions underpinning the actual testing procedure, measurement, and interpretation of the video head impulse test—vHIT. Other papers have reported in detail the artifacts which can interfere with obtaining accurate eye movement results, but here we focus not on artifacts, but on the basic questions about the assumptions and geometrical considerations by which vHIT works. These matters are crucial in understanding and appropriately interpreting the results obtained, especially as vHIT is now being applied to central disorders. The interpretation of the eye velocity responses relies on thorough knowledge of the factors which can affect the response—for example the orientation of the goggles on the head, the head pitch, and the contribution of vertical canals to the horizontal canal response. We highlight some of these issues and point to future developments and improvements. The paper assumes knowledge of how vHIT testing is conducted.

Angular acceleration stimulation of a semicircular canal causes an increased firing rate in primary canal afferent neurons that result in nystagmus in healthy adult animals. However, increased firing rate in canal afferent neurons can also be caused by sound or vibration in patients after a semicircular canal dehiscence, and so these unusual stimuli will also cause nystagmus. The recent data and model by Iversen and Rabbitt show that sound or vibration may increase firing rate either by neural activation locked to the individual cycles of the stimulus or by slow changes in firing rate due to fluid pumping (“acoustic streaming”), which causes cupula deflection. Both mechanisms will act to increase the primary afferent firing rate and so trigger nystagmus. The primary afferent data in guinea pigs indicate that in some situations, these two mechanisms may oppose each other. This review has shown how these three clinical phenomena—skull vibration-induced nystagmus, enhanced vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, and the Tullio phenomenon—have a common tie: they are caused by the new response of semicircular canal afferent neurons to sound and vibration after a semicircular canal dehiscence.

Introduction: On video head impulse testing (vHIT) of semicircular canal function, some patients reliably show enhanced eye velocity and so VOR gains >1.0. Modeling and imaging indicate this could be due to endolymphatic hydrops. Oral glycerol reduces membranous labyrinth volume and reduces cochlear symptoms of hydrops, so we tested whether oral glycerol reduced the enhanced vHIT eye velocity.Study Design: Prospective clinical study and retrospective analysis of patient data.Methods: Patients with enhanced eye velocity during horizontal vHIT were enrolled (n = 9, 17 ears) and given orally 86% glycerol, 1.5 mL/kg of body weight, dissolved 1:1 in physiological saline. Horizontal vHIT testing was performed before glycerol intake (time 0), then at intervals of 1, 2, and 3 h after the oral glycerol intake. Control patients with enhanced eye velocity (n = 4, 6 ears) received water and were tested at the same intervals. To provide an objective index of enhanced eye velocity we used a measure of VOR gain which captures the enhanced eye velocity which is so clear on inspecting the eye velocity records. We call this measure the initial VOR gain and it is defined as: (the ratio of peak eye velocity to the value of head velocity at the time of peak eye velocity). The responses of other patients who showed enhanced eye velocity during routine clinical testing were analyzed to try to identify how the enhancement occurred.Results: We found that oral glycerol caused, on average, a significant reduction in the enhanced eye velocity response, whereas water caused no systematic change. The enhanced eye velocity during the head impulses is due in some patients to a compensatory saccade-like response during the increasing head velocity.Conclusion: The significant reduction in enhanced eye velocity during head impulse testing following oral glycerol is consistent with the hypothesis that the enhanced eye velocity in vHIT may be caused by endolymphatic hydrops.

Purpose of review: To examine the recent literature concerning the neural basis and clinical evidence for the response of the labyrinth to sound and vibration: vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) and vibration-induced nystagmus (VIN). Recent findings: There are two streams of information from each otolith - a sustained stream (afferents with regular resting activity, signalling gravity and low-frequency linear accelerations) and a transient stream (afferents with irregular resting activity) signalling onset of linear acceleration, and sound and vibration. These irregular neurons are synchronized to each cycle of the stimulus. Neurons in the transient stream are tested by presenting sounds or vibration (500 Hz) and using surface electrodes to measure myogenic potentials from muscles activated by otolithic stimuli (VEMPs). 100 Hz vibration activates irregular canal afferents and causes a stimulus-locked VIN in patients with asymmetric canal function. These new tests of the transient system have one big advantage over older tests of the sustained system - they reliably show the effect of long-term unilateral vestibular loss. Summary: The new physiological and anatomical evidence shows how sound and vibration activate otolith and canal receptors and so provides the scientific foundation for VEMPs and VIN, which are important tools for diagnosing vestibular disorders. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/CONR/A47.

Air-conducted sound and bone-conduced vibration activate otolithic receptors and afferent neurons in both the utricular and saccular maculae, and trigger small electromyographic (EMG) responses [called vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs)] in various muscle groups throughout the body. The use of these VEMPs for clinical assessment of human otolithic function is built on the following logical steps: (1) that high-frequency sound and vibration at clinically effective stimulus levels activate otolithic receptors and afferents, rather than semicircular canal afferents, (2) that there is differential anatomical projection of otolith afferents to eye muscles and neck muscles, and (3) that isolated stimulation of the utricular macula induces short latency responses in eye muscles, and that isolated stimulation of the saccular macula induces short latency responses in neck motoneurons. Evidence supports these logical steps, and so VEMPs are increasingly being used for clinical assessment of otolith function, even differential evaluation of utricular and saccular function. The proposal, originally put forward by Curthoys in 2010, is now accepted: that the ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential reflects predominantly contralateral utricular function and the cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential reflects predominantly ipsilateral saccular function. So VEMPs can provide differential tests of utricular and saccular function, not because of stimulus selectivity for either of the two maculae, but by measuring responses which are predominantly determined by the differential neural projection of utricular as opposed to saccular neural information to various muscle groups. The major question which this review addresses is how the otolithic sensory system, with such a high density otoconial layer, can be activated by individual cycles of sound and vibration and show such tight locking of the timing of action potentials of single primary otolithic afferents to a p

In 1988, we introduced impulsive testing of semicircular canal (SCC) function measured with scleral search coils and showed that it could accurately and reliably detect impaired function even of a single lateral canal. Later we showed that it was also possible to test individual vertical canal function in peripheral and also in central vestibular disorders and proposed a physiological mechanism for why this might be so. For the next 20 years, between 1988 and 2008, impulsive testing of individual SCC function could only be accurately done by a few aficionados with the time and money to support scleral search-coil systems-an expensive, complicated and cumbersome, semi-invasive technique that never made the transition from the research lab to the dizzy clinic. Then, in 2009 and 2013, we introduced a video method of testing function of each of the six canals individually. Since 2009, the method has been taken up by most dizzy clinics around the world, with now close to 100 refereed articles in PubMed. In many dizzy clinics around the world, video Head Impulse Testing has supplanted caloric testing as the initial and in some cases the final test of choice in patients with suspected vestibular disorders. Here, we consider seven current, interesting, and controversial aspects of video Head Impulse Testing: (1) introduction to the test; (2) the progress from the head impulse protocol (HIMPs) to the new variant-suppression head impulse protocol (SHIMPs); (3) the physiological basis for head impulse testing; (4) practical aspects and potential pitfalls of video head impulse testing; (5) problems of vestibulo-ocular reflex gain calculations; (6) head impulse testing in central vestibular disorders; and (7) to stay right up-to-date-new clinical disease patterns emerging from video head impulse testing. With thanks and appreciation we dedicate this article to our friend, colleague, and mentor, Dr Bernard Cohen of Mount Sinai Medical School, New York, who since his first article