. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 6.

Published in final edited form as: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008 Jul 24;80(1):74–78. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2007.136432

Table 4.

Descriptive results for individual sensory organisation tests of dynamic posturography

Sensory condition	Change in anxiety during posturography (N=65)			SMD (N=69)
	Correlation with continuous variable	Abnormality rate by anxiety response category		Correlation with continuous variable	Abnormality rate by SMD category
	Correlation with continuous variable	Decrease in anxiety	Increase in anxiety	Correlation with continuous variable	SMD-1<6,	SMD-1⩾6
	r^*	n (%)	n (%)	r^*	n (%)	n (%)
Condition I	…	0 (0.0)	1 (3.3)	…	0 (0.0)	1 (3.6)
Condition II	…	0 (0.0)	2 (6.7)	…	0 (0.0)	2 (7.1)
Condition III	0.30	1 (2.2)	5 (16.7)	0.31	1 (2.4)	5 (17.9)
Condition IV	0.24	4 (11.4)	9 (30.0)	0.48	3 (7.3)	10 (35.7)
Condition V	0.23	2 (5.7)	7 (23.3)	0.11	4 (9.8)	6 (21.4)
Condition VI	0.40	2 (5.7)	8 (26.7)	0.10	5 (12.2)	6 (21.4)

Point biserial correlation between continuous variables (ie, anxiety response and SMD), and binary “dependent” variable (ie, normal vs abnormal posturography result). SMD, space and motion discomfort.