Dynavision Normative Data for Healthy Adults: Reaction Test Program

Abstract

Importance: Previous research has calculated normative data for the Dynavision D2 Visuomotor Training (D2) System among healthy athletes to understand concussion management, but to date no studies have identified the norms for healthy adults over a large age range (18-80 yr) for physical response speed. Objective: To provide normative data for the D2 for physical response speed in adults ages 18-80 yr. Design: Cross-sectional, descriptive study to obtain normative data on physical response speed using the D2 for adults in age categories 18-40, 41-60, and 61-80 yr. Setting: Genesis Physical Therapy and Wellness Center, a Midwestern outpatient hospital-based therapy center. Participants: Three hundred adults, stratified into three different age categories. Normal standards with quartiles were identified for each age and sex category. Outcomes and Measures: Multiple regression model of the inverse response times. Results: The results showed a significant difference in physical response speed between men and women and between the different age groups. Women in all age categories were slower than men. Physical response speed increased with age in both sexes, but each had significantly different age and sex main effects (p < .0005). Conclusions and Relevance: Occupational therapy practitioners can use the normative standards identified in this study in their assessment of clients with visual and cognitive deficits after a brain injury, stroke, or other neurologic pathology. What This Article Adds: This study's results can be added to the battery of other common evaluation measures that occupational therapists use to evaluate visual and cognitive deficits after neurological impairments.

Reactive Task Performance Under Varying Loads in Division I Collegiate Soccer Athletes

“…Relative to other studies, performance in the Single-load * A task and the Single-load RT were comparable to previous findings, indicating normative values for this population during their first attempt at this protocol (Clark et al, 2015;Blackwell et al, 2020;Hunzinger et al, 2020). Most notably, performance in the Singleload * A test was found to be nearly the same as those previously found in collegiate soccer athletes for women, as well as visual and motor RT speeds determined from a different study (Jajtner et al, 2013;.…”

“…During testing, participants were asked to wear contacts rather than glasses, if vision correction was required, to avoid frames from contributing to peripheral blind spots in the visual field, as well as attempt to reduce variation in vision accuracy. The testing protocol consisted of the following tasks, which utilize preprogrammed Dynavision modes that have been widely used in the literature, each separated by a 30-s break (Klavora et al, 1995;Jajtner et al, 2013;Bigsby et al, 2014;Stone et al, 2019;Blackwell et al, 2020;Hunzinger et al, 2020). Each of the tasks and the conditions under which they were completed are defined below:…”

Reliability of the Dynavision task in virtual reality to explore visuomotor phenotypes

“…By providing a quantitative assessment of individual visuomotor integration, the task has demonstrated great value among healthy and diseased populations. Recently, normative values have been provided to help occupational therapy practitioners 11 . It is known that compromised ability to interactively coordinate visual perception and fine motor skills has been associated with a variety of neurological disorders and neurogenetic syndromes 12 .…”

Characterizing upper limb function in the context of activities of daily living in CLN3 disease

“…Total accuracy scores (total number of lighted buttons struck) and average reaction times for button strikes are autocalculated after trial completion, with lower scores and longer reaction times indicative of poorer performance. Normative reaction time values have been reported in adults ages 18–80 years (Blackwell et al, 2020), but not in children. The Dynavision Mode A has strong test–retest reliability (ICC of 0.88) in 19–26 years olds (Klavora et al, 1995) and fair reliability in motor reaction time with sufficient practice (i.e., three familiarization trials) prior to testing (Wells et al, 2014).…”