Medeniyet medical journal · 2024
Relationship Between Motion Sickness Susceptibility and Vestibular Test Results.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gedik Toker Ozge, Kuru Elif, Ozdemir Sumeyye, Rencber Betul, Takan Ege, Araz Serdar, Basoz Behmen Meliha, Bal Nilufer, Aksoy Fadlullah
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: There is no test parameter with high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of motion sickness. The aim of this study was to demonstrate a correlation between vestibular function tests and motion sickness. In addition, our secondary aim is to evaluate the sensitivity of the skull vibration-induced nystagmus test (SVINT) in the diagnosis of motion sickness.
METHODS: A total of 44 young adults aged 19-25 who had no hearing loss, complaints of dizziness/vertigo, or any diagnosed neurological disease were included. According to the motion sickness susceptibility questionnaire-short form (MSSQ-SF), participants were divided into the motion sickness group (21±1.38 years) and control group (20.5±1.18 years). Mean MSSQ-SF score for the motion sickness group is 78.18±12.2 and for control group 19.09±17.08. Ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential tests, SVINT, video head impulse test, and oculomotor tests were performed.
RESULTS: The only significant difference between the groups was in n1-p1 amplitudes in the left ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential test (p=0.014). None of the other parameters differed between the two groups (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant relationship between motion sickness susceptibility and the results of any vestibular function test. Performing diagnostic tests for motion sickness in an environment that creates significant sensory conflict may yield different results. This study contributes to the literature in terms of evaluating the vestibular system using a comprehensive test battery and is the first to use the SVINT test in motion sickness.
METHODS: A total of 44 young adults aged 19-25 who had no hearing loss, complaints of dizziness/vertigo, or any diagnosed neurological disease were included. According to the motion sickness susceptibility questionnaire-short form (MSSQ-SF), participants were divided into the motion sickness group (21±1.38 years) and control group (20.5±1.18 years). Mean MSSQ-SF score for the motion sickness group is 78.18±12.2 and for control group 19.09±17.08. Ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential tests, SVINT, video head impulse test, and oculomotor tests were performed.
RESULTS: The only significant difference between the groups was in n1-p1 amplitudes in the left ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential test (p=0.014). None of the other parameters differed between the two groups (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant relationship between motion sickness susceptibility and the results of any vestibular function test. Performing diagnostic tests for motion sickness in an environment that creates significant sensory conflict may yield different results. This study contributes to the literature in terms of evaluating the vestibular system using a comprehensive test battery and is the first to use the SVINT test in motion sickness.