Anxiety among individuals with visual vertigo and vestibulopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Visual vertigo (VV) is a type of dizziness triggered by visual stimuli. Despite a high incidence, its relationship with anxiety is not well-defined or understood. This study evaluated anxiety levels in subjects with VV compared to vestibulopathic subjects without VV and healthy individuals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study to evaluate anxiety among individuals with VV was conducted twice. The first study included 72 participants (66 to 83 years of age) from senior residential centers. The second included 31 participants from a vestibular rehabilitation program (age range 35-82 years). Study 1 also used the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale and study 2 the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). RESULTS: Subjects were classified as VV positive (27 in study 1, 10 in study 2) or vestibulopathic without VV (30 in study 1, 11 in study 2) based on Head Impulse or Dynamic Visual Acuity Tests and the Dizziness Questionnaire. The remaining were age-matched healthy controls. The outcome of each study demonstrated significantly higher anxiety levels (p = 0.0001) in the VV group compared to the other groups. The results of the ABC test demonstrated that subjects in the VV group had significantly lower self-confidence (p = 0.001) than those in the Vest and Cont groups and performed fewer balance-related activities of daily life. DHI results showed that VV group expressed higher (p < 0.001) mean scores for self-perceived feelings of dizziness and imbalance (54%), compared to the Vest (9%) and Cont groups (1%). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety related to VV requires special attention when assessing and managing vestibulopathy, regardless of patient age. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Anxiety is a characteristic of subjects with visual vertigo (VV) and vestibulopathy. Anxiety in subjects with VV is not related to age. VV should be considered when subjects with anxiety complain of imbalance. Anxiety and vestibulopathy are often interrelated and should be considered in diagnostic evaluations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".