Comparative Analysis of Deviation and Response Time in Static and Dynamic Subjective Visual Vertical Among Healthy Younger and Middle-Aged Adults in an Indian Population
Abstract
Background and Aim: The Subjective Visual Vertical (SVV) is a reliable clinical measure of an individual's ability to determine whether an object is oriented in the vertical plane, regardless of the presence of a true vertical reference. The study aimed to examine the influence of various background conditions on SVV deviation and response time, compare these outcomes between healthy younger and middle-aged adults and to measure the test-retest reliability of the SVV paradigm.
Methods: The SVV test was performed in healthy younger and middle-aged adults. A total of 100 participants were recruited for the study, 50 per group. The SVV test was administered using a standardized videonystagmography instrument (Cyclops Balance-eye device) in static and dynamic (clockwise and counterclockwise) visual background Conditions. The outcome variables, SVV deviation (°) and response time (s), were recorded under each condition. Test-retest reliability was also measured.
Results: Significant differences in SVV deviation and response time were observed across the testing conditions. Between-group analysis showed significantly greater SVV deviation under the counterclockwise and static background conditions in middle-aged adults compared with younger adults, whereas response time differed significantly between the groups under the clockwise and counterclockwise conditions. The SVV paradigm demonstrated good test–retest reliability.
Conclusion: Dynamic SVV conditions were more sensitive than static conditions in detecting differences in SVV deviation and response time between younger and middle-aged adults, indicating subtle age-related changes in visual–vestibular processing. The SVV paradigm also demonstrated good test–retest reliability, supporting its clinical applicability.
2. Dieterich M, Brandt T. Ocular torsion and tilt of subjective visual vertical are sensitive brainstem signs. Ann Neurol. 1993;33(3):292-9. [DOI:10.1002/ana.410330311]
3. Kanashiro AM, Pereira CB, Maia FM, Scaff M, Barbosa ER. [Subjective visual vertical evaluation in normal Brazilian subjects]. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2007;65(2B):472-5. Portuguese. [DOI:10.1590/s0004-282x2007000300021]
4. Vibert D, Häusler R, Safran AB. Subjective visual vertical in peripheral unilateral vestibular diseases. J Vestib Res. 1999;9(2):145-52. Erratum in: J Vestib Res 2000;10(1):57-8.
5. Pavan TZ, Funabashi M, Carneiro JA, Pontelli TE, Tedeschi W, Colafêmina JF, et al. Software for subjective visual vertical assessment: an observational cross-sectional study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;78(5):51-8. [DOI:10.5935/1808-8694.20120008]
6. Böhmer A, Mast F. Assessing otolith function by the subjective visual vertical. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;871:221-31. [DOI:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb09187.x]
7. Kumagami H, Sainoo Y, Fujiyama D, Baba A, Oku R, Takasaki K, et al. Subjective visual vertical in acute attacks of Ménière's disease. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30(2):206-9. [DOI:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181925010]
8. Pavlou M, Wijnberg N, Faldon ME, Bronstein AM. Effect of semicircular canal stimulation on the perception of the visual vertical. J Neurophysiol. 2003;90(2):622-30. [DOI:10.1152/jn.00960.2002]
9. Roberts RE, Da Silva Melo M, Siddiqui AA, Arshad Q, Patel M. Vestibular and oculomotor influences on visual dependency. J Neurophysiol. 2016;116(3):1480-7. [DOI:10.1152/jn.00895.2015]
10. Lee SC. Relationship of visual dependence to age, balance, attention, and vertigo. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017;29(8):1318-22. [DOI:10.1589/jpts.29.1318]
11. Hayashi S, Kamo T, Ogihara H, Tani Y, Hoshino K, Kobayashi K, et al. Effects of subjective visual verticality and visual dependence on balance function in older adults using a smartphone-based virtual reality system. Perception. 2025;54(9):674-88. [DOI:10.1177/03010066251342006]
12. Wade MG, Lindquist R, Taylor JR, Treat-Jacobson D. Optical flow, spatial orientation, and the control of posture in the elderly. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1995;50(1):51-8. [DOI:10.1093/geronb/50b.1.p51]
13. Borger LL, Whitney SL, Redfern MS, Furman JM. The influence of dynamic visual environments on postural sway in the elderly. J Vestib Res. 1999;9(3):197-205.
14. Fathi AS, Green DA. Subclinical variability in visual function modulates visual dependence - independent of age. Exp Brain Res. 2024;242(12):2827-37. [DOI:10.1007/s00221-024-06940-6]
15. Ashish G, Augustine AM, Tyagi AK, Lepcha A, Balraj A. Subjective Visual Vertical and Horizontal in Vestibular Migraine. J Int Adv Otol. 2017;13(2):254-8. [DOI:10.5152/iao.2017.4056]
16. Santrock JW. Essentials of life-span development. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2022.
17. Zalewski CK. Rotational vestibular assessment. In: Jacobson GP, Shepard NT, Barin K, Burkard RF, Janky K, McCaslin DL, editors. Balance Function Assessment and Management. 3rd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2021. p. 283-332.
18. Dichgans J, Held R, Young LR, Brandt T. Moving visual scenes influence the apparent direction of gravity. Science. 1972;178(4066):1217-9. [DOI:10.1126/science.178.4066.1217]
19. Kobayashi H, Hayashi Y, Higashino K, Saito A, Kunihiro T, Kanzaki J, et al. Dynamic and static subjective visual vertical with aging. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2002;29(4):325-8. [DOI:10.1016/s0385-8146(02)00058-5]
20. Medendorp WP, Alberts BBGT, Verhagen WIM, Koppen M, Selen LPJ. Psychophysical Evaluation of Sensory Reweighting in Bilateral Vestibulopathy. Front Neurol. 2018;9:377. [DOI:10.3389/fneur.2018.00377]
21. Iwasaki S, Yamasoba T. Dizziness and Imbalance in the Elderly: Age-related Decline in the Vestibular System. Aging Dis. 2014;6(1):38-47. [DOI:10.14336/AD.2014.0128]
22. Dichgans J, Diener HC, Brandt T. Optokinetic-graviceptive interaction in different head positions. Acta Otolaryngol. 1974;78(5-6):391-8. [DOI:10.3109/00016487409126371]
23. Tesio L, Longo S, Rota V. The subjective visual vertical: validation of a simple test. Int J Rehabil Res. 2011;34(4):307-15. [DOI:10.1097/MRR.0b013e32834c45bc]
24. Venhovens J, Meulstee J, Verhagen WI. Static Subjective Visual Vertical in Healthy Volunteers: The Effects of Different Preset Angle Deviations and Test-Retest Variability. Neuroophthalmology. 2016;40(3):113-19. [DOI:10.3109/01658107.2016.1156707]
25. Michelson PL, McCaslin DL, Jacobson GP, Petrak M, English L, et al. Assessment of Subjective Visual Vertical (SVV) Using the "Bucket Test" and the Virtual SVV System. Am J Audiol. 2018;27(3):249-59. [DOI:10.1044/2018_AJA-17-0019]
26. Riera-Tur L, Caballero-Garcia A, Martin-Mateos AJ, Lechuga-Sancho AM. Efficacy of the subjective visual vertical test performed using a mobile application to detect vestibular pathology. J Vestib Res. 2022;32(1):21-7. [DOI:10.3233/VES-201526]
27. Chetana N, Jayesh R. Subjective Visual Vertical in Various Vestibular Disorders by Using a Simple Bucket Test. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;67(2):180-4. [DOI:10.1007/s12070-014-0760-0]
| Files | ||
| Issue | Articles in Press | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Subjective visual vertical static background dynamic condition clockwise rotation counterclockwise rotation visual dependence | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
