State-of-the-Art Assessment Allows for Improved Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential Test-Retest Reliability

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability values of myogenic responses using the latest guidelines for vestibular assessment. Twenty-two otologically and neurologically normal adults were assessed twice, on two different days. The analyses were carried out using interclass correlations. The results showed that the latest recommendations for vestibular assessment lead to test-retest reliability values that are as high, or greater, than those reported in previous studies. The results suggest that state-of-the-art testing, using the latest recommendations as well as electromyography control, improves reliability values of myogenic responses, more specifically for the cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. The impact of small differences in experimental procedures on the reliability values of myogenic responses is also addressed.

Chirp-Evoked VEMPs: A Test-Retest Reliability Study

“…Some studies were conducted with participants seated in the upright position (Versino et al 2001; Maes et al 2009; Vanspauwen et al 2009; Venhovens et al 2015), as in the present study, while other studies required that participants were supine during assessment (Isaradisaikul et al 2008; Nguyen et al 2010; Behtani et al 2018). Lastly, some studies included the use of electromyogram monitoring (Behtani et al 2018), whereas others relied on feedback mechanisms instead (Maes et al 2009). Variations in each of these parameters are likely to have contributed to the discrepancies in the literature regarding the test-retest reliability of the P1 latency, N1 latency, P1-N1 amplitude, and asymmetry ratio.…”

“…Some authors used unilateral sternocleidomastoid muscle activation (Eleftheriadou et al 2009; Maes et al 2009; Vanspauwen et al 2009; Behtani et al 2018), as was done in the current study, whereas others employed bilateral sternocleidomastoid muscle activation (Versino et al 2001; Nguyen et al 2010; Venhovens et al 2015). Some studies were conducted with participants seated in the upright position (Versino et al 2001; Maes et al 2009; Vanspauwen et al 2009; Venhovens et al 2015), as in the present study, while other studies required that participants were supine during assessment (Isaradisaikul et al 2008; Nguyen et al 2010; Behtani et al 2018). Lastly, some studies included the use of electromyogram monitoring (Behtani et al 2018), whereas others relied on feedback mechanisms instead (Maes et al 2009).…”

“…Several studies have reported moderate to excellent test-retest reliability of the P1-N1 amplitude using a click or 500 Hz TB stimulus (Versino et al 2001; Isaradisaikul et al 2008; Maes et al 2009; Nguyen at al. 2010; Behtani et al 2018). Historically, a large intrasubject variation in VEMP amplitude has been observed due to varying sternocleidomastoid muscle contraction levels, the type and frequency of the stimulus, and the mode of stimulation used (Isaradisaikul et al 2008; Anupriya & Kumar 2019).…”

“…The N1 latency is regarded as the most robust and reliable cVEMP latency parameter (Isaradisaikul et al 2008; Nguyen at al. 2010; Behtani et al 2018), but diagnostically, the P1 latency is more sensitive to lesions in the vestibulospinal tract and is the better parameter to evaluate the latency of a cVEMP response (Murofushi et al 2001; Maes 2009). The present study reported between-session ICC values with moderate reliability for P1 and N1 latency evoked by a 500 Hz NB CE-Chirp stimulus bilaterally.…”

“…Previous studies have focused on the test-retest reliability of c&oVEMPs evoked by click and TB stimuli using a variation of methodologies and subsequently varying results (Versino et al 2001;Eleftheriadou et al 2009;Maes et al 2009;Vanspauwen et al 2009;Nguyen et al 2010;Venhovens et al 2015). Some authors used unilateral sternocleidomastoid muscle activation (Eleftheriadou et al 2009;Maes et al 2009;Vanspauwen et al 2009;Behtani et al 2018), as was done in the current study, whereas others employed bilateral sternocleidomastoid muscle activation (Versino et al 2001;Nguyen et al 2010;Venhovens et al 2015). Some studies were conducted with participants seated in the upright position (Versino et al 2001;Maes et al 2009;Vanspauwen et al 2009;Venhovens et al 2015), as in the present study, while other studies required that participants were supine during assessment (Isaradisaikul et al 2008;Nguyen et al 2010;Behtani et al 2018).…”