{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019860973187686197, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.631578947368421, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of assessment of caloric nystagmus by observation of duration and by electronystagmographic measurement of slow-phase velocity.

The 'duration' of induced nystagmus was the first parameter used to quantify vestibular function during caloric testing. However, later work suggested that there was a poor correlation between this measure and the physiological events occurring during caloric testing. This, coupled with the development of electronystagmography and the value of a permanent record of the caloric responses, led to the widespread use of the 'slow-phase velocity' measurement of induced nystagmus, as the most commonly used parameter for assessment of the caloric test. Despite a wealth of literature, the 'best' parameter for measuring vestibular function using the caloric test remains undefined and the duration and slow-phase velocity parameters appear to provide different information. The strengths and shortcomings of these two parameters and their relative values are reviewed.