基于虚拟现实的临床感觉统合与平衡测试在中年成年人中的同时效度和一致性
Concurrent validity and agreement of a virtual reality-based Clinical Testclinical test of Sensory Integrationsensory integration and Balancebalance in middle-aged adults.
文献信息
| PMID | 42731297 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Amin Mohammadi |
| 作者单位 | Ellmer College of Health Sciences, Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA. Electronic address: amoha039@odu.edu. |
| 期刊 | Gait & posture |
| SCI 分区 | Q2 |
| IF | 3.2 |
| 研究类型 | 临床研究 · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
背景： 姿势控制的感觉统合依赖于视觉、躯体感觉和前庭输入的动态重加权。临床感觉统合与平衡测试（CTSIB）被广泛使用，但基于实验室的系统可能成本高昂且便携性较差。虚拟现实（VR）可能提供一种可扩展的替代方案，尽管VR特定的视觉特征可能会改变摇摆行为并限制与传统方案的可互换性。
目的： 评估基于VR的CTSIB（VRCTSIB）相对于传统测力板CTSIB在匹配感觉情境下的同时效度、一致性和偏倚。
方法： 40名40-59岁的成年人在一次实验室会话中完成了12种条件（6种CTSIB，6种VRCTSIB）。匹配情境结合了支撑面（硬质、泡沫）和视觉状态（正常视觉、视觉剥夺、摇摆参照/视觉扰动）。结局指标为EllipseArea95、总路径长度和径向RMS摇摆。效度采用Pearson相关性评估。一致性采用ICC(2,1)和Bland-Altman分析评估，并通过将VRCTSIB - CTSIB差值对方法均值进行回归来检验比例偏倚。
结果： VRCTSIB和CTSIB在所有匹配情境和结局指标中均显著相关（所有p < 0.001）。EllipseArea95的相关系数范围为0.700至0.796，路径长度为0.573-0.882，摇摆为0.542-0.780。一致性取决于条件，在泡沫睁眼条件下最低。Bland-Altman分析显示条件依赖性偏倚，包括在硬质睁眼和泡沫睁眼条件下路径长度存在显著正偏倚。
结论： VRCTSIB显示出与CTSIB的同时效度证据；然而，一致性和偏倚在不同感觉条件下存在差异，表明在没有条件特异性校准或VRCTSIB特异性常模值的情况下，这些方法不应被视为普遍可互换。
英文摘要
BACKGROUND: Sensory integration for postural control relies on dynamic reweighting of visual, somatosensory, and vestibular inputs. The Clinical Test of Sensory Integration and Balance (CTSIB) is widely used, but laboratory-based systems can be costly and less portable. Virtual reality (VR) may provide a scalable alternative, although VR-specific visual features may alter sway behavior and limit interchangeability with traditional protocols.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the concurrent validity, agreement, and bias of a VR-based CTSIB (VRCTSIB) relative to a traditional force-plate CTSIB across matched sensory contexts.
METHODS: Forty adults aged 40-59 years completed 12 conditions (6 CTSIB, 6 VRCTSIB) during one laboratory session. Matched contexts combined surface (firm, foam) and visual state (normal vision, vision deprivation, sway-referenced/visual perturbation). Outcomes were EllipseArea95, total path length, and radial RMS sway. Validity was assessed with Pearson correlations. Agreement was assessed using ICC(2,1) and Bland-Altman analyses, with proportional bias tested by regressing VRCTSIB - CTSIB differences on the method mean.
RESULTS: VRCTSIB and CTSIB were significantly associated across all matched contexts and outcomes (all p < 0.001). Correlations ranged from 0.700 to 0.796 for EllipseArea95, 0.573-0.882 for path length, and 0.542-0.780 for sway. Agreement was condition dependent and lowest in foam eyes-open conditions. Bland-Altman analyses showed context-dependent bias, including notable positive bias in path length during firm eyes-open and foam eyes-open conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: VRCTSIB showed evidence of concurrent validity with CTSIB; however, agreement and bias varied across sensory conditions, indicating that the methods should not be considered universally interchangeable without condition-specific calibration or VRCTSIB-specific normative values.