Abstract
In the suppression head impulse paradigm (SHIMP) vHIT protocol, the participant is instructed to follow with his gaze a mobile target generated by a laser placed on the participant's head. Recent studies have reported that the refixation saccade latencies are in relation with the time evolution of the vestibular dysfunction in both (standard and SHIMP) procedures. We hypothesized that some central mechanisms like head impulse prediction could be one of the causes for the differences in the saccadic eye responses. A prospective cohort non-randomized study was designed. For the SHIMP protocol, recorded with the ICS Impulse ver. 4.0® (Otometrics A/S, Taastrup, Denmark) vHIT device, three different algorithms were performed: "predictable," "less predictable," and "unpredictable" depending on the target's predictability. A mathematical method was developed to analyze the SHIMP responses. The method was implemented as an additional tool to the MATLAB open source script for the extended analysis of the vHIT responses named HITCal. In cohort 1, 52 participants were included in "predictable" SHIMP protocol. In cohort 2, 60 patients were included for the "less predictable" and 35 patients for the "unpredictable" SHIMP protocol. The participants made more early saccades when instructed to perform the "predictable" paradigm compared with the "less predictable" paradigm (p < 0.001). The less predictable protocol did not reveal any significant difference when compared with the unpredictable protocol (p = 0.189). For the latency of the first saccade, there was statistical difference between the "unpredictable" and "predictable" protocols (p < 0.001) and between the "less predictable" and "predictable" protocols (p < 0.001). Finally, we did not find any relationship between the horizontal vestibulo-ocular reflex (hVOR) gain and the latency of the saccades. We developed a specific method to analyze and detect early SHIMP saccades. Our findings offer evidence regarding the influence of predictability on the latency of the SHIMP saccadic responses, suggesting that early saccades are probably caused by a conditioned response of the participant. The lack of relationship between the hVOR gain and the latency of the saccades suggests that the predictive behavior that caused the early eye saccades are independent of the vestibular function.
Highlights
The suppression head impulse paradigm (SHIMP) was introduced in 2016 by MacDougall et al [1] as an alternative paradigm to the conventional head impulse paradigm (HIMP) for the video head impulse test.The main difference between both paradigms is that during the HIMP protocol, short, fast, and unpredictable head turns are performed passively by the examiner on the head of the participant who is instructed to keep his/her gaze on a groundfixed target placed in front of the participant [2], in the SHIMP protocol, the same impulses are performed by the examiner, but the participant is instructed to follow with his/her gaze a mobile target generated by a laser source placed on the participant’s head
When a healthy participant is tested in the SHIMP protocol, after the slow phase movement, a saccadic movement [4] will correct the eye position to match it with the new position of the laser target that has been moved to a new position due to the participant’s head movement [2]
We developed a specific method to analyze and detect early SHIMP saccades to test the hypothesis that the appearance of these early saccades is associated with predictability
Summary
The main difference between both paradigms is that during the HIMP protocol, short, fast, and unpredictable head turns are performed passively by the examiner on the head of the participant who is instructed to keep his/her gaze on a groundfixed target placed in front of the participant [2], in the SHIMP protocol, the same impulses are performed by the examiner, but the participant is instructed to follow with his/her gaze a mobile target generated by a laser source placed on the participant’s head. We hypothesized that some central mechanisms like head impulse prediction could be one of the causes for the differences in the saccadic eye responses
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.