Clinical characteristics of visual motion hypersensitivity: a systematic review

Abstract

This qualitative systematic review presents an overview of the state of the research relating to visual motion hypersensitivity (VMH) and offers a reference tool for future studies in the field. The study set out to identify and collate articles investigating risk groups with aberrant responses to visual motion as compared to healthy control groups, presenting evidence for risk factors associated with visual motion hypersensitivity. Data were synthesized into the state of the research and analyzed in the context of the clinical characteristics of each risk factor. Literature searches were performed on Medline Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cinahl, identifying a total of 586 studies of which 54 were finally included. Original articles published between the dates of commencement for each database and 19th January 2021 were included. JBI critical appraisal tools were implemented for each corresponding article type. In total, the following number of studies was identified for each respective risk factor: age (n = 6), migraines (n = 8), concussions (n = 8), vestibular disorders (n = 13), psychiatric conditions (n = 5), and Parkinson's disease (n = 5). Several studies described VMH as the primary concern (n = 6), though these primarily included patients with vestibulopathies. There were considerable differences in the nomenclature employed to describe VMH, depending largely on the investigating group. An overview of investigated risk factors and their evaluation methods was presented in a Sankey diagram. Posturography was the most implemented methodology but due to diverse measurements meta-analyses were not possible. One may however note that while the easily implemented Vestibular Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) was designed for concussed patients, it may prove useful for other risk groups.

Keywords: Dizziness; Motion sickness; Non-vestibular vertigo; Vertigo; Visual vertigo; Visually induced dizziness.

Fig. 1

A flow diagram illustrating the total number of articles included at each step of the review process

Fig. 2

A Sankey diagram showing the connectivity between risk factors and their evaluation methods