Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2025
Virtual Prism Adaptation Therapy: Protocol for Validation in Healthy Adults
Published on: February 12, 2020
Virtual Reality Application for Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening: Current Clinical Protocol Versus a Novel Prototype
Philip Pavilionis1, Isayas Berhe Adhanom2, Ryan Moran3
1Neuromechanics Laboratory, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.
Background:
Virtual reality (VR) has been explored to improve baseline and postinjury assessments in sport-related concussion (SRC). Some experience symptoms related to VR, unrelated to concussion. This may deter use of vestibular/ocular motor screening (VOMS) using VR. Baseline VR VOMS symptomatology differentiates baseline from overall symptomatology.
Hypothesis:
There will be no difference between current clinical manual VOMS (MAN), a clinical prototype (PRO), and VR for symptom provocation change score (SPCS) and near point of convergence (NPC) average score in a healthy population and sex differences among the 3 modes of administration.
Study Design:
Cohort study.
Level Of Evidence:
Level 3.
Methods:
A total of 688 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I student-athletes completed VOMS using 3 methods (MAN, N = 111; female athletes, N = 47; male athletes, N = 64; average age, 21 years; PRO, N = 365; female athletes, N = 154; male athletes, N = 211; average age, 21 years; VR, N = 212; female athletes, N = 78; male athletes, N = 134; average age = 20 years) over a 3-year period (2019-2021) during annual baseline testing. Exclusion criteria were as follows: self-reported motion sickness in the past 6 months, existing or previous neurological insult, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, or noncorrected vision impairment. Administration of MAN followed the current clinical protocols, PRO used a novel prototype, and VR used an HTC Vive Pro Eye head mounted display. Symptom provocation was compared using Mann-Whitney U tests across each VOMS subtest with total SPCS and NPC average by each method.
Results:
MAN had significantly (P < 0.01) more baseline SPCS (MAN = 0.466 ± 1.165, PRO = 0.163 ± 0.644, VR = 0.161 ± 0.933) and significantly (P < 0.01) and more SPCS (MAN = 0.396 ± 1.081, PRO = 0.128 ± 0.427, VR = 0.48 ± 0.845) when compared with PRO and VR. NPC average measurements for VR (average, 2.99 ± 0.684 cm) were significantly greater than MAN (average, 2.91 ± 3.35 cm; P < 0.01; Cohen's d = 0.03) and PRO (average, 2.21 ± 1.81 cm; P < 0.01; Cohen's d = 0.57). For sex differences, female athletes reported greater SPCS with PRO (female athletes, 0.29 ± 0.87; male athletes, 0.06 ± 0.29; P < 0.01) but not in VR or MAN.
Conclusion:
Using a VR system to administer the VOMS may not elicit additional symptoms, resulting in fewer false positives and is somewhat stable between sexes.
Clinical Relevance:
VOMS may allow for standardization among administrators and reduce possible false positives.
