抑制性头脉冲范式中的认知-运动干扰
Cognitive-motor interference during the suppression head impulse paradigm.
文献信息
| PMID | 42743914 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Noa Rozendorn |
| 作者单位 | Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Affiliated to the Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel. |
| 期刊 | Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation |
| SCI 分区 | Q3 |
| IF | 3.1 |
| 研究类型 | 临床研究 · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
目的： 前庭眼反射（VOR）对于在头部运动期间稳定视觉以及日常多任务活动中至关重要。抑制性头脉冲范式（SHIMP）是头脉冲范式（HIMP）的补充，被认为对残余前庭功能更敏感。本研究探讨了认知和运动双任务对健康成人SHIMP的影响。方法：22名参与者进行了单任务HIMP和SHIMP，以及两项认知双任务SHIMP（连续减法、地图导航）和一项运动双任务SHIMP（反向点击）。结果包括VOR增益和抗补偿性扫视参数（数量、潜伏期、幅度、持续时间和峰值速度）。结果：SHIMP中的VOR增益低于HIMP（0.827 ± 0.140 vs 0.941 ± 0.123；p < 0.001）。认知双任务显著影响抗补偿性扫视，减少扫视数量（15-22%），延长潜伏期（39-47%），降低幅度（20%），缩短持续时间（约5%），并降低峰值速度（约10%）（均p < 0.05）。运动双任务适度增加增益（0.868 ± 0.131 vs 0.827 ± 0.140；p = 0.025），但仅使抗补偿性扫视潜伏期增加17%（p < 0.05）。结论：双任务对SHIMP结果产生了不同影响。VOR增益基本保持，而抗补偿性扫视显著受损。这些发现强调了中枢和注意力机制对抗补偿性扫视生成的贡献，并表明这些参数在SHIMP测试期间可能提供与VOR增益互补的信息。
英文摘要
ObjectiveThe vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) is critical for stabilizing vision during head motion and for daily multitasking activities. The suppression head impulse paradigm (SHIMP) complements the head impulse paradigm (HIMP) and is considered more sensitive for residual vestibular function. This study examined the impact of cognitive and motor dual-tasking on SHIMP in healthy adults.MethodsTwenty-two participants performed single-task HIMP and SHIMP alongside two cognitive dual-task SHIMP (serial subtraction, map navigation) and one motor dual-task SHIMP (counter clicking). Outcomes included VOR gain and anti-compensatory saccade parameters (number, latency, amplitude, duration, and peak velocity).ResultsVOR gain was lower in SHIMP than HIMP (0.827 ± 0.140 vs 0.941 ± 0.123; p < 0.001). Cognitive dual-task markedly affected anti-compensatory saccade, reducing saccade number (15-22%), prolonging latency (39-47%), decreasing amplitude (20%), shortening duration (∼5%), and reducing peak velocity (∼10%) (all p < 0.05). Motor dual-task modestly increased gain (0.868 ± 0.131 vs 0.827 ± 0.140; p = 0.025) but only increased anti-compensatory saccade latency by 17% (p < 0.05).ConclusionsDual-tasking exerted distinct effects on SHIMP outcomes. VOR gain remained largely preserved, whereas anti-compensatory saccades were substantially impaired. These findings highlight the contribution of central and attentional mechanisms to anti-compensatory saccade generation and suggest that these parameters may provide complementary information to VOR gain during SHIMP testing.