ArticleJournal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation2013
Effects of distance and duration on vertical dynamic visual acuity in screening healthy adults and people with vestibular disorders.
Article in Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Computerized Device for Evaluating Vestibular Function in Locomotion: A New Evaluation Tool of Vestibular Hypofunction.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Visual function among commercial vehicle drivers in the central region of Ghana.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDynamic visual acuity (DVA) testing may be a useful, indirect indicator of vestibulo-ocular reflex function. Previous evidence shows that acuity for 2 m targets differs little between patients and normals using a 75 ms display duration and that healthy subjects do not differ in acuity when standing and walking while viewing a far target but they do differ when viewing a near target.
objectiveImprove the protocol of a screening tool by testing the hypothesis that healthy control subjects and patients and with unilateral peripheral vestibular weakness differ on DVA when viewing far targets while seated.
methodsControls and patients were tested while they were seated in a chair that oscillated vertically at 2 Hz. They viewed a computer screen 4 m away, while stationary and while moving, with viewing times of either 75 ms or 500 ms.
resultsThe amount of change between static and dynamic conditions did not differ significantly between patients and controls for the 75 ms condition but controls had lower difference scores than patients when using the 500 ms duration. The ROC value was low, 0.68. Compared to historical data using the 75 ms duration at a distance of 2 m, subjects in both diagnostic groups had better visual acuity at the 75 ms/4 m distance.
conclusionsThese results suggest that using the longer duration is better for differentiating patients from healthy controls and they support previous evidence showing that near target viewing is more challenging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.