Background: Subjective Visual Vertical (SVV) and Subjective Visual Horizontal (SVH) tests are useful tests to identify central vestibular tone imbalances.
Aim: To determine the normal values of the Subjective Visual Vertical/Subjective Visual Horizontal (SVV/SVH) test in the pediatric group. The normative data were intended to be used as reference values in the vestibular evaluation of patients presenting with balance disorders and complaints of dizziness.
Materials and methods: The study included 60 individuals between the ages of 8 and 18. All participants underwent static and dynamic SVV and SVH testing using the Virtualis Virtual Reality device, based on a test-retest protocol with six different initial tilt angles (10°, -10°, 20°, -20°, 30°, -30°). Deviation angles were analyzed.
Results: Across all tilt angles, the mean deviation angle ranged from 1.93° to 2.44° for the static SVV test and from 1.73° to 2.31° for the static SVH test. For the dynamic SVV test, the mean deviation angle ranged from 10.47° to 11.42°, while in the dynamic SVH test, it ranged from 7.3° to 8.85° across all tilt angles.
Conclusion: As a result of this study, normative values for static and dynamic SVV and SVH tests using the Virtualis Virtual Reality Device were established for use in vestibular assessment in the pediatric population. The study contributes to the current literature by providing updated data, addressing the limited number of studies on static and dynamic SVV and SVH tests in pediatric populations.
Objective: Developmental dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder primarily characterized by phonological and reading difficulties. This study aimed to investigate temporal auditory processing and dichotic listening performance in children with developmental dyslexia and to explore their potential contribution to reading-related difficulties.
Methods: Sixty children aged 8-13 years participated in the study, including 30 children diagnosed with developmental dyslexia and 30 age-matched typically developing peers. Central auditory processing was assessed using the Staggered Spondaic Word (SSW) test for dichotic listening and the Frequency Pattern Test (FPT), Duration Pattern Test (DPT), and Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) for temporal auditory processing.
Results: Children with developmental dyslexia demonstrated significantly poorer performance than controls across all temporal and dichotic auditory processing measures (p < 0.05). In the SSW test, the greatest performance difference was observed in the left competing condition. Temporal processing deficits were evident in frequency discrimination, duration pattern recognition, and gap detection tasks.
Conclusion: Children with developmental dyslexia exhibit weaknesses in temporal and dichotic auditory processing tasks. Given the linguistic demands inherent in some dichotic measures, these findings likely reflect an interaction between auditory and language-related processing rather than isolated auditory pathway dysfunction. Incorporating central auditory processing assessment into multidisciplinary dyslexia evaluations may contribute to more targeted diagnostic and intervention approaches.
Objectives: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of infants with a "refer" result on transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) but a subsequent bilateral "pass" on the automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) at neonatal screening, with the goal of determining the risk of permanent hearing loss and potential functional consequences during childhood of this profile.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed infants born between 2011 and 2019 at Pisa University Hospital (Italy) who failed TEOAE but passed bilateral AABR. Long-term follow-up was conducted ≥5 years after screening using a structured telephone questionnaire on functional outcomes (speech therapy, language delay, school difficulties, formal diagnosis of hearing loss). Children with positive responses were recalled for in-person audiological testing.
Results: Among 16,574 screened newborns, 74 (0.45 %) showed a TEOAE "refer" but bilateral AABR "pass". Long-term data were obtained for 63 children (85.1 %), with a mean follow-up age of 9.2 years (median 10, range 5-12). Of the 25 children who reported at least one functional difficulty and underwent in-person audiological reassessment, three (4.7 % of the total cohort) showed conductive hearing loss, while all others had normal pure-tone thresholds (≤20 dB HL bilaterally). The conductive losses were associated with otitis media with effusion and underlying conditions such as Down syndrome or cleft palate. Despite these findings, 25 children (39.7 %) were reported to have functional difficulties, including need for speech therapy, language delay, or school problems.
Conclusions: This is the first study to report long-term (>5 years) outcomes in children with a TEOAE "refer"/bilateral AABR "pass" profile. In this cohort, no cases of permanent hearing loss were identified. However, the relatively high prevalence of functional difficulties highlights the importance of pediatric surveillance to ensure timely recognition of developmental issues.

