Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2026
Mobile Game-based Virtual Reality Program for Upper Extremity Stroke Rehabilitation
Published on: March 8, 2018
A Comparison of Generalized and Individualized Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy in a Military TBI Sample
Christina B Vander Vegt1, Candace A Hill-Pearson, Jamie N Hershaw
1Traumatic Brain Injury Center of Excellence (TBI CoE), Research and Development Directorate (J-9), Defense Health Agency, Fort Carson, Colorado (Drs Vander Vegt, Hershaw, and Souvignier and Ms Hill-Pearson); Warrior Recovery Center, Evans Army Community Hospital, Fort Carson, Colorado (Drs Vander Vegt, Hershaw, Bobula, and Souvignier and Ms Hill-Pearson); General Dynamics Information Technology, Falls Church, Virginia (Drs Vander Vegt and Hershaw and Ms Hill-Pearson); and Michigan State University, East Lansing (Ms Loftin).
Objective:
To compare clinical outcomes between active duty service members receiving generalized versus individualized vestibular rehabilitation treatment (GVRT and IVRT, respectively) for persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).
Setting:
An outpatient TBI rehabilitation clinic.
Participants:
Fifty-seven participants with persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mTBI were randomly assigned to the GVRT ( n = 28) or IVRT ( n = 29) group, stratified by dizziness-related impairment severity. Forty-two participants ( n = 21 per group) completed the posttreatment evaluation and were included in analyses.
Design:
We employed a single-site, randomized, pre-/posttest experimental design. The GVRT program consisted of eight 45-minute group-based treatment sessions and IVRT consisted of three 30-minute one-on-one treatment sessions both to be completed within 8 weeks. Group assignment was not blinded to study personnel or participants. Research evaluations were completed approximately 2 weeks prior to treatment initiation and following treatment completion.
Main Measures:
Outcome measures included Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) total scores, Sensory Organization Test (SOT) composite equilibrium and sensory input ratio scores, Head Shake SOT (HS-SOT) conditions 2 and 5, and horizontal and vertical Dynamic Visual Acuity. Separate mixed-effects models were used to compare clinical outcomes between the GVRT and IVRT groups.
Results:
Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from pre- to posttreatment on self-reported dizziness-related impairment (DHI [ F(1,41) = 16.28, P < .001]) and balance performance with and without head movement (composite equilibrium score [ F(1,41) = 16.58, P < .001, effect size [ES] = 0.43], somatosensory [ F(1,41) = 6.79, P = .013, ES = 0.26], visual [ F(1,41) = 6.49, P = .015, ES = 0.29], vestibular [ F(1,41) = 22.31, P < .001, ES = 0.55], and HS-SOT condition 5 [ F(1,38) = 23.98, P < .001, ES = 0.64]). Treatment effects did not differ between groups on any of the outcome measures.
Conclusions:
We provide preliminary evidence that differences in clinical outcomes do not exist between participants receiving generalized versus individualized VR. Further research is needed to determine comparative effectiveness between these 2 treatment approaches for persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mTBI.
More Related Videos
05:02Using Unidirectional Rotations to Improve Vestibular System Asymmetry in Patients with Vestibular Dysfunction
Published on: August 30, 2019
04:02Author Spotlight: Developing Precise and Clinically Relevant Models for Studying Secondary Degeneration in Traumatic Optic Neuropathy
Published on: November 29, 2024
