Normative Values for the Head Shake Sensory Organization Test in an Active Duty Military Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The Head Shake Sensory Organization Test (HS-SOT) assesses postural stability while the head is moving and may also identify deficits in attention associated with the dual task conditions of moving the head at a specified speed while maintaining balance. Normative values for the HS-SOT have not been established in a healthy military population or other highly trained populations such as athletes. Establishing normative values in a military population will enable clinicians to compare the scores of patients with medical conditions that affect postural stability and sensory integration such as concussion or traumatic brain injury, vestibular dysfunction, or migraine to those of a healthy population to determine a need for intervention and for return to duty considerations. The purposes of this cross-sectional study were to establish normative values for the HS-SOT within the military population, to determine whether HS-SOT scores differed between men and women or among age groups, and to determine whether HS-SOT scores differed from scores on similar conditions of the Sensory Organization Test (SOT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Active duty service members (n = 237, 54 female) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and the National Capitol Region (Washington, D.C, Maryland, and Virginia) completed the SOT and HS-SOT on the NeuroCom® Balance Master™. Parametric and non-parametric comparisons were analyzed for the equilibrium scores for the SOT and HS-SOT conditions 2 (SOT-2, HS-SOT-2, respectively) and 5 (SOT-5, HS-SOT-5, respectively) and the equilibrium score ratios (ESRs) for HS-SOT-2 and HS-SOT-5 for the total sample, men and women, and age group categories (18-26 years, 27-35 years, and 36-45 years). RESULTS: There were no differences in HS-SOT-2 or HS-SOT-5 equilibrium ratio scores between men (0.99 ±.029 and 0.83 ±0.25, respectively) and women (1.00 ±0.03 and 0.81 ±0.21, respectively). There were no differences in the SOT-2 equilibrium scores (F = 2.29, P = 0.10) or SOT-5 equilibrium scores (Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.26, P = 0.20) among the different age groups. SOT-2 equilibrium scores were higher than the HS-SOT-2 equilibrium scores (Z = -4.10, P < 0.001). SOT-5 equilibrium scores were also higher than HS-SOT-5 equilibrium scores (Z = -12.22, P < 0.001), and the HS-SOT-2 and HS-SOT-5 equilibrium scores differed from each other (Z = -13.26, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study established normative values for the HS-SOT in a military population. Equilibrium scores did not differ between men and women or among age groups, suggesting that these values can be used as reference points for most service members. Postural stability was found to be significantly challenged during head motion, indicating the HS-SOT is a valuable tool for identifying subtle impairments in postural stability. These findings have important implications for early detection and intervention in individuals with medical conditions affecting balance, particularly concussions or vestibular disorders.

Normative values for the Sensory Organization Test in an active duty military cohort.

BACKGROUND: Computerized dynamic posturography is commonly used to assess balance in service members, but normative values for the military population have not been established. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the normative values for the Motor Control Test (MCT), Sensory Organization Test (SOT) and the enhanced SOT (eSOT) within the military population and at which point do they differ? METHODS: Cross-sectional study. 237 active duty service members (78 % male) completed the MCT, SOT and the eSOT with the sway manipulated at a gain of 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, or 2.0. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the means of men and women for the SOT and MCT composite scores. A Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare the means of age groups for the SOT composite score. An independent t-test was used to compare the SOT composite scores from our military population to the manufacturer's normative (civilian) data. The means and standard deviations for the eSOT scores were reported for each gain. Paired-samples t-tests were performed to compare the SOT composite score with the eSOT composite score for each level of gain. RESULTS: There was no difference between SOT composite scores for men and women (Mann-Whitney U = 4363.50, p = 0.19) or among age groups (Kruskal-Wallis = 2.77, p = 0.25). The mean SOT composite scores were not different from the manufacturer's normative values (p = 0.155). SOT composite scores were significantly higher than eSOT composite scores for gains of 1.4 (t = 3.16, p = 0.003), 1.6 (t = 5.73, p < 0.001), 1.8 (t = 5.26, p < 0.001) and 2.0 (t = 5.89, p < 0.001). MCT composite scores were lower in the 18-26 year old than the 36-45 year old age group (p = 0.013). SIGNIFICANCE: This study establishes normative values for the MCT, SOT and eSOT in active duty military service members. The results suggest that the manufacturer's normal values are appropriate for making judgments about the postural stability of service members.

The use of ultrasound imaging of the abdominal drawing-in maneuver in subjects with low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial among patients with low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVES: (1) Determine the reliability of real-time ultrasound imaging for assessing activation of the lateral abdominal muscles; (2) characterize the extent to which the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM) results in preferential activation of the transverse abdominis (TrA); and (3) determine if ultrasound biofeedback improves short-term performance of the ADIM in patients with LBP. BACKGROUND: Ultrasound imaging is reportedly useful for measuring and training patients to preferentially activate the TrA muscle. However, research to support these claims is limited. METHODS AND MEASURES: Thirty patients with LBP referred for lumbar stabilization training were randomized to receive either traditional training (n = 15) or traditional training with biofeedback (n = 15). Ultrasound imaging was used to measure changes in thickness of the lateral abdominal muscles. Differences in preferential changes in muscle thickness of the TrA between groups and across time were assessed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Intrarater reliability measuring lateral abdominal muscle thickness exceeded 0.93. On average, patients in both groups demonstrated a 2-fold increase in the thickness of the TrA during the ADIM. Performance of the ADIM did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: These data provide construct validity for the notion that the ADIM results in preferential activation of the TrA in patients with LBP. Although, the addition of biofeedback did not enhance the ability to perform the ADIM at a short-term follow-up, our data suggest a possible ceiling effect or an insufficient training stimulus. Further research is necessary to determine if there is a subgroup of patients with LBP who may benefit from biofeedback.