Table 4.
HITD vs HIT comparison using pooled bin approach and Fisher’s exact test.
| Side | Affected |
Healthy |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HITD |
HIT |
p | HITD |
HIT |
p | |||||
| + | − | + | − | + | − | + | − | |||
| Vestibular neuritis | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0.367 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 0.244 |
| Ménière | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.238 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0.238 |
| Unilateral deficit | 9 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 0.279 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 0.322 |
| Bilateral deficit | 12 | 2 | 11 | 3 | 0.337 | |||||
| Central | 4 | 8 | 0 | 12 | 0.046 | |||||
The table compares the HITD and the HIT in terms of the number of subjects with a positive (abnormal) or a negative (normal) test., for each diagnostic group and both for the affected and the healthy sides. For the Bilateral deficit and the Central groups both sides were considered to be as potentially affected. HITD was evaluated by using the pooled bin approach, namely the patient was compared to controls after all the responses from all the different acceleration bins were pooled together. The p values are those of the Fisher’s exact tests that were calculated for statistical comparison of the data.