1. Postural Sway in a Virtual Environment in Patients With Unilateral Peripheral Vestibular Lesions Susan L. Whitney, PhD, PT, NCS, ATC Patrick J. Sparto, PhD, PT Kathryn E. Brown, MS, PT, NCS Mark S. Redfern, PhD Joseph M. Furman, MD, PhD Departments of Physical Therapy, Otolaryngology and Bioengineering University of Pittsburgh Acknowledgements: Eye and Ear Foundation, NIDCD Grants: DC05205 & DC05372

2. Introduction Vestibular compensation adjusts for abnormalities in the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) and postural stability seen acutely following unilateral peripheral vestibular lesions (UPVL). Long term visual dependence of individuals with UPVL has not been fully examined. The ability to receive cues from peripheral vision in these individuals has not been studied.

3. Purpose The purpose of this pilot study was to begin to answer the question of how visual scenes affect postural control after vestibular dysfunction, using a subset of all possible variables available in virtual environments. To do so we started with the following goals: –assess the visual motion sensitivity of patients with chronic UPVL’s as compared to individuals with normal vestibular function. –determine the amount of subjective discomfort each subject perceived.

5. Characteristics of the visual scenes that can be varied Movement of the scene Stereoscopic vs. monoscopic vision Binocular vs. monocular vision Height of the focus of vision Size of the virtual world on the screen Central vs. peripheral motion Complexity of the scene Brightness

6. Experimental Design Independent variables: –Subject group (patient vs. control) –Field of View (FOV) –Frequency of tunnel movement Dependent variables: –Amount of sway –Subjective Units of Discomfort (SUDs) rating

7. Experimental Conditions Each session had an initial and final “quiet” trial with a blank screen in a darkened room. Each subject was tested under 3 different FOV conditions. –Full vision. –Peripheral vision only (central 30º occluded). –Central vision only (central 30º). Each subject was also tested under 2 different frequencies of visual scene movement. –0.1 Hz movement. –0.25 Hz movement.

10. Methods A visual stimulus of an infinitely long tunnel with checkered walls was displayed in a virtual environment display facility (BNAVE). Subjects stood barefoot for 80 seconds while viewing sinusoidal movements of the virtual tunnel. –RMS velocity was 1.2 m/s. Sixty seconds of movement were preceded and followed by 10 seconds of no tunnel movement.

11. Methods Subjects stood on force platform with their feet comfortably apart, wearing a harness to prevent a fall. The subject’s head movement was measured using an electromagnetic sensor affixed to an adjustable plastic headband. Eye movement was monitored to ensure that eyes were viewing the screen. All data were collected with the room darkened.

13. Methods Subjects were asked to rate their Subjective Units of Discomfort (SUDs) prior to the start and after each trial. The subject was asked to rate their level of anxiety on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the greatest.

14. Patient Group Twelve former patients all of whom were s/p vestibular nerve resection were recruited to participate. –10 secondary to acoustic neuroma. –2 secondary to Meniere’s disease. Gender: 5 males, 7 females. Age: Mean: 49 ± 10; Range: 31 - 65.

15. Patient Group Time since unilateral peripheral vestibular loss: –Range: 10 – 72 mos. –Mean: 39 ± 22 mos. Highly functional individuals. –Activities-specific Balance Confidence: Mean: 88 ± 11; Range: 67 - 100. –Dizziness Handicap Inventory: Mean: 10 ± 11; Range: 0 - 26.

16. Control Group Twelve gender and age (± 2 years) matched controls were recruited to participate. All exhibited normal vestibular laboratory testing.

17. Data Analysis Anterior-Posterior head position was sampled at 20 Hz. Data was processed with a phaseless digital bandpass filter. –Filter was 0.1 ( ±.05) or 0.25 ( ±.05) Hz. RMS sway was computed for the full 60 sec of the moving visual stimulus.

24. Conclusions There is no statistically significant difference between the patient and control groups. –Patients did not appear to be more visually dependent than controls. Why? Too challenging for both groups? Not challenging enough to discriminate between the groups? Patients were well-compensated.

25. Summary Central FOV results in less visual motion-induced sway in both people without disease and in patients with chronic UPVL. FOV significantly influences SUDs scores in both groups. Lower frequency of visual scene movement results in greater sway in both people without disease and in patients with chronic UPVL.