PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 87, No. 4, April 2007, p. 477
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2007.87.4.477

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Murray, K. J
Right arrow Articles by Waterston, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Murray, K. J
Right arrow Articles by Waterston, J.

Letters and Responses

Author Response


We thank Dr Clendaniel for his comments.

First, it is acknowledged that, because of the differential blood supply and innervation patterns of the peripheral vestibular apparatus, disorders in this area are likely to have combined involvement of both semicircular canal and otolith structures. However, this view may be somewhat simplistic, as it remains unknown whether the otolith organs and the semicircular canals are equally sensitive to vascular or neurally based inflammatory disorders.

Second, it is also acknowledged that the sensitivity with which caloric, vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP), and static bias testing were able to identify vestibular dysfunction in the study participants was paramount in the group allocation process. The otolith function tests, in particular, have been reported to have a sensitivity in the range of 40% to 60%, and, for this reason, otolith dysfunction may not have been correctly identified across the study sample. It is important to recognize, however, that until recently otolith function could be measured only in research laboratories with elaborate and expensive equipment designed to measure horizontal, vertical, and torsional eye movements. The recent development of simple clinical tests, such as VEMP and static bias testing, has been an important step in the assessment of vestibular function. This study was the first of its kind to use these tools to advance our knowledge regarding the clinical presentation of individuals with peripheral vestibular dysfunction. As other, more sensitive, tests of otolith function are developed, this research can be progressed.

Kate J Murray, Keith D Hill, Bev Phillips and John Waterston

KJ Murray, PhD, is Physiotherapist, Dizzy Day Clinics, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


   Footnotes
 
This letter was posted as a Rapid Response on February 22, 2007, at www.ptjournal.org.





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Murray, K. J
Right arrow Articles by Waterston, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Murray, K. J
Right arrow Articles by Waterston, J.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Physical Therapy Association.