Vestibular/ocular Motor Screening: Evaluation Of A Novel Prototype For Injury Assessment

Pavilionis, Philip; Alphonsa, Sushma; Kissick, Cameron; Taylor, Madison; Moran, Ryan; Constantino, Nora; Murray, Nicholas G.

doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000683768.34241.c8

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

2020

DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000683768.34241.c8

|View full text |Cite

Vestibular/ocular Motor Screening: Evaluation Of A Novel Prototype For Injury Assessment

Philip Pavilionis

Sushma Alphonsa

Cameron Kissick

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent0

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4,40 While advantageous, some persons may experience VR sickness (ie, dizziness and nausea) while engaging in VR due to the virtual environment or the type of equipment used to present the stimuli. 5,17,34,36 In fact, up to 67% of adults may experience mild-to-severe symptoms of VR sickness, 5 with women being more likely to experience VR sickness compared with men. [11][12][13]30,35 Before using VR as a major platform for standardizing symptom-provoking vision exams like the VOMS, it is important to ascertain how healthy persons and specific genders may respond.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual Reality Application for Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening: Current Clinical Protocol Versus a Novel Prototype

Pavilionis

Adhanom

Moran

et al. 2023

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Virtual reality (VR) has been explored to improve baseline and postinjury assessments in sport-related concussion (SRC). Some experience symptoms related to VR, unrelated to concussion. This may deter use of vestibular/ocular motor screening (VOMS) using VR. Baseline VR VOMS symptomatology differentiates baseline from overall symptomatology. Hypothesis: There will be no difference between current clinical manual VOMS (MAN), a clinical prototype (PRO), and VR for symptom provocation change score (SPCS) and near point of convergence (NPC) average score in a healthy population and sex differences among the 3 modes of administration. Study Design: Cohort study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: A total of 688 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I student-athletes completed VOMS using 3 methods (MAN, N = 111; female athletes, N = 47; male athletes, N = 64; average age, 21 years; PRO, N = 365; female athletes, N = 154; male athletes, N = 211; average age, 21 years; VR, N = 212; female athletes, N = 78; male athletes, N = 134; average age = 20 years) over a 3-year period (2019-2021) during annual baseline testing. Exclusion criteria were as follows: self-reported motion sickness in the past 6 months, existing or previous neurological insult, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, or noncorrected vision impairment. Administration of MAN followed the current clinical protocols, PRO used a novel prototype, and VR used an HTC Vive Pro Eye head mounted display. Symptom provocation was compared using Mann-Whitney U tests across each VOMS subtest with total SPCS and NPC average by each method. Results: MAN had significantly ( P < 0.01) more baseline SPCS (MAN = 0.466 ± 1.165, PRO = 0.163 ± 0.644, VR = 0.161 ± 0.933) and significantly ( P < 0.01) and more SPCS (MAN = 0.396 ± 1.081, PRO = 0.128 ± 0.427, VR = 0.48 ± 0.845) when compared with PRO and VR. NPC average measurements for VR (average, 2.99 ± 0.684 cm) were significantly greater than MAN (average, 2.91 ± 3.35 cm; P < 0.01; Cohen’s d = 0.03) and PRO (average, 2.21 ± 1.81 cm; P < 0.01; Cohen’s d = 0.57). For sex differences, female athletes reported greater SPCS with PRO (female athletes, 0.29 ± 0.87; male athletes, 0.06 ± 0.29; P < 0.01) but not in VR or MAN. Conclusion: Using a VR system to administer the VOMS may not elicit additional symptoms, resulting in fewer false positives and is somewhat stable between sexes. Clinical Relevance: VOMS may allow for standardization among administrators and reduce possible false positives.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual Reality Application for Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening: Current Clinical Protocol Versus a Novel Prototype

Pavilionis

Adhanom

Moran

et al. 2023

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Vestibular/ocular Motor Screening: Evaluation Of A Novel Prototype For Injury Assessment

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Virtual Reality Application for Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening: Current Clinical Protocol Versus a Novel Prototype

Virtual Reality Application for Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening: Current Clinical Protocol Versus a Novel Prototype

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About