In article <199605170430.XAA17727 at moe.cc.utexas.edu>,
sirianni at UTS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU says...
>>>I am starting to preforma a LOT of ENGs for a particular ENT group. They
>>have a one channel recorder so the readings are just grossly peripheral or
>>I know I have heard of software out there that can read a strip that has
>>scanned into the computer. Has anyone used this software? Does it work at
>>moderatly good? Any suggestions of what works best if there are several
Time for Tom's regular rant about ENG software. Software gives you NO
advantage in analyzing spontaneous, positional, Hallpike, or caloric tracings.
In fact, given the currenttly available software's relatively poor ability to
distinguish nystagmus from artifact (ie, blinks, saccades, electical noise),
relying on software to anaylze a poor quality recording isn't a good idea.
Your eyes are much better at picking a nystagmus pattern out of a noisy trace
than any software.
Given that, why buy computerized ENG? It's the ability to take a strict and
detailed look at smooth pursuit and saccade that makes it worthwhile. If the
target is under computer control, you can get the software to give you
detailed information about the patient's central vestibulo-ocular function,
and, in the case of the commercially available stuff, compare it to a large
database of age and sex-matched norms.
If you're doing traditional stripchart recordings of ENG, with no computer
control of the saccade and pursuit stimuli, feeding the data into a computer
will give you no advantage.
[end rant] ;)