Head Movements in Patients with Vestibular Lesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine if head movements in patients with vestibular deficiency differ from those in normal subjects during daily life activities. (2) To assess if these differences can be correlated with patients' perception of dizziness-induced handicap. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective matched-pairs study SETTING: Tertiary referral center PATIENTS: Thirty-one vestibular schwannoma patients with documented postoperative unilateral vestibular loss and their age-, gender-, and physical activity level-matched controls with symmetric vestibulo-ocular reflexes. INTERVENTIONS: Head movements during 10 tasks from daily life were recorded using body-worn movement sensors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The time to complete the task, the average head velocity and acceleration during each task, and the number of head turns performed were compared between cases and controls. These measures were then correlated with the self-reported Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) scores of the patients. RESULTS: Patients with a unilateral vestibular deficit took significantly longer to perform most daily life activities compared to controls. Their head movements, however, were not always slower. They adopted a different movement strategy, in certain instances less efficient and more disorganized. Dimensions of movement are not all affected equally after a unilateral vestibular loss with evidence of clear clustering of the differences within dimensions across tasks. There was no correlation between the DHI and patients' performance in those tasks. CONCLUSION: Vestibular loss, even when compensated, affects patients' movements, which can be measured in an ambulatory setting of daily life activities. The differences in movements associated with vestibular loss do not correlate with the degree of self-reported handicap.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".