Suppression Head Impulse Test (SHIMP) versus Head Impulse Test (HIMP) When Diagnosing Bilateral Vestibulopathy

The Suppression Head Impulse (SHIMP) test was introduced as an alternative to the Head Impulse Paradigm (HIMP) to overcome challenges in VOR gain calculation due to the interference of covert saccades. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine if SHIMP, compared to HIMP, reduces covert saccades in BV patients and (2) to define the agreement on diagnosing BV between SHIMP and HIMP. First, the number of covert saccades was compared between SHIMP and HIMP. Secondly, VOR gain was compared between SHIMP and HIMP. Lastly, the agreement between SHIMP and HIMP on identifying BV (horizontal VOR gain <0.6) was evaluated. A total of 98 BV patients were included. To our knowledge, this is the largest study population on SHIMP testing in BV patients. Covert saccades were significantly reduced, and a lower VOR gain was found during SHIMP compared to HIMP (p < 0.001). However, the clinical relevance of these statistically significant differences is small. In 93% of the patients, an agreement was found between the two paradigms regarding the diagnosis of BV, and both paradigms detect BV in the vast majority of patients.

[1]  Ricardo D'Albora,et al.  Clinical Testing of Head Impulse Paradigm and Suppression Head Impulse Paradigm Using a Diagnostic Headband: Combined Clinical Sign for Improved Performance , 2021, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[2]  H. Kingma,et al.  The Effect of Different Head Movement Paradigms on Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex Gain and Saccadic Eye Responses in the Suppression Head Impulse Test in Healthy Adult Volunteers , 2021, Frontiers in Neurology.

[3]  D. Hougaard,et al.  Suppression head impulse testing is recommended for vestibular testing of patients with untreated unilateral vestibular schwannoma , 2021, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[4]  H. Kingma,et al.  Comparison of three video head impulse test systems for the diagnosis of bilateral vestibulopathy , 2020, Journal of Neurology.

[5]  J. Rubinstein,et al.  The vestibular implant: Opinion statement on implantation criteria for research , 2020, Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation.

[6]  Sun O Chang,et al.  Comparing the Suppression Head Impulse Paradigm and the Head Impulse Paradigm in Vestibular Neuritis. , 2019, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[7]  I. Curthoys,et al.  Reducing the number of impulses in video head impulse testing - It's the quality not the numbers. , 2019, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[8]  A. Bronstein,et al.  Viewing Target Distance Influences the Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex Gain when Assessed Using the Video Head Impulse Test , 2018, Audiology and Neurotology.

[9]  T. Ovesen,et al.  Suppression head impulse paradigm in healthy adolescents - A novel variant of the head impulse test. , 2018, Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation.

[10]  M. Maheu,et al.  Enhanced vestibulo-ocular reflex suppression in dancers during passive high-velocity head impulses , 2018, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  Á. Batuecas-Caletrío,et al.  Vestibulo‐ocular reflex gain values in the suppression head impulse test of healthy subjects , 2018, The Laryngoscope.

[12]  Tae Su Kim,et al.  Changes of video head impulse test results in lateral semicircular canal plane by different peak head velocities in patients with vestibular neuritis , 2018, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[13]  H. Kingma,et al.  The Video Head Impulse Test and the Influence of Daily Use of Spectacles to Correct a Refractive Error , 2018, Front. Neurol..

[14]  H. Kingma,et al.  Laboratory examinations for the vestibular system , 2017, Current opinion in neurology.

[15]  J. Rey-Martínez,et al.  The Role of Predictability in Saccadic Eye Responses in the Suppression Head Impulse Test of Horizontal Semicircular Canal Function , 2017, Front. Neurol..

[16]  H. Kingma,et al.  Bilateral vestibulopathy: Diagnostic criteria Consensus document of the Classification Committee of the Bárány Society , 2017, Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation.

[17]  Hamish G. MacDougall,et al.  The Video Head Impulse Test , 2017, Front. Neurol..

[18]  I. Curthoys,et al.  A new saccadic indicator of peripheral vestibular function based on the video head impulse test , 2016, Neurology.

[19]  Aaron L. Wong,et al.  Compensatory saccades benefit from prediction during head impulse testing in early recovery from vestibular deafferentation , 2016, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[20]  H. Kingma,et al.  Bilateral Vestibular Hypofunction: Challenges in Establishing the Diagnosis in Adults , 2015, ORL.

[21]  Georgios Mantokoudis,et al.  Quantifying the Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex with Video-Oculography: Nature and Frequency of Artifacts , 2014, Audiology and Neurotology.

[22]  I. Curthoys,et al.  The Video Head Impulse Test (vHIT) Detects Vertical Semicircular Canal Dysfunction , 2013, PloS one.

[23]  J. Demer,et al.  Latency of voluntary cancellation of the human vestibulo-ocular reflex during transient yaw rotation , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  I S Curthoys,et al.  A clinical sign of canal paresis. , 1988, Archives of neurology.

[25]  Mark G Carpenter,et al.  Differences in head impulse test results due to analysis techniques. , 2017, Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation.