Cross-sectional study compares VEMP parameters in older adults with sensorineural hearing loss, indicating age-related vestibular decline.
Background Age-related degeneration affects both auditory and vestibular systems due to shared anatomical and physiological pathways. While Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials (VEMPs) are useful in assessing otolithic function, limited evidence exists on age-related vestibular changes in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss. Objective To compare Cervical VEMP and Ocular VEMP latency and amplitude parameters among individuals with sensorineural hearing loss aged 50–60 years and 60 years 1 month–70 years. Design A cross-sectional observational design was employed to record latency (ms) and amplitude (µV) parameters using instrumental measures. The participants for this study were selected through a purposive sampling technique. Methods Sixty adults with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss were recruited and divided into two age groups: Group I (50–60 years, n = 30) and Group II (60 years 1 month–70 years, n = 30). Air-conducted sound-evoked cervical VEMP and ocular VEMP responses were recorded. Latencies and amplitudes were analyzed using non-parametric statistical methods, the Mann–Whitney U test, as the data did not meet normality assumptions based on the Shapiro–Wilk test. Results Compared to Group I, Group II demonstrated prolonged latencies and significantly reduced amplitudes in both cervical VEMP and ocular VEMP responses. Amplitude reduction was more pronounced than latency changes, indicating age-related decline in otolithic and associated neural function. Conclusion Advancing age in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss is associated with deterioration of vestibular responses, particularly reflected by reduced VEMP amplitudes. Incorporating VEMP assessment into routine audiological evaluation of older adults with sensorineural hearing loss may aid in early identification of vestibular dysfunction and fall risk management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
H et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: