The Impact of Optical Illusions on the Vestibular System.
Head impulse test
Optical illusions
Postural balance
Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials
Vestibulo-ocular reflex
Journal
Journal of audiology & otology
ISSN: 2384-1621
Titre abrégé: J Audiol Otol
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101657815
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
10
02
2021
accepted:
24
04
2021
pubmed:
25
6
2021
medline:
25
6
2021
entrez:
24
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Balance control is maintained in stationary and dynamic conditions, with coordinated muscle responses generated by somatosensory, vestibular, and visual inputs. This study aimed to investigate how the vestibular system is affected in the presence of an optical illusion to better understand the interconnected pathways of the visual and vestibular systems. Subjects and. The study involved 54 young adults (27 males and 27 females) aged 18-25 years. The recruited participants were subjected to the cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP) test and video head impulse test (vHIT). The cVEMP and vHIT tests were performed once each in the absence and presence of an optical illusion. In addition, after each test, whether the individuals felt balanced was determined using a questionnaire. cVEMP results in the presence of the optical illusion showed shortened latencies and increased amplitudes for the left side in comparison to the results in the absence of the optical illusion (p≤0.05). When vHIT results were compared, it was seen that the right lateral and bilateral anterior canal gains were increased, almost to 1.0 (p<0.05). It is thought that when the visual-vestibular inputs are incompatible with each other, the sensory reweighting mechanism is activated, and this mechanism strengthens the more reliable (vestibular) inputs, while suppressing the less reliable (visual) inputs. As long as the incompatible condition persists, the sensory reweighting mechanism will continue to operate, thanks to the feedback loop from the efferent vestibular system.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Balance control is maintained in stationary and dynamic conditions, with coordinated muscle responses generated by somatosensory, vestibular, and visual inputs. This study aimed to investigate how the vestibular system is affected in the presence of an optical illusion to better understand the interconnected pathways of the visual and vestibular systems. Subjects and.
METHODS
METHODS
The study involved 54 young adults (27 males and 27 females) aged 18-25 years. The recruited participants were subjected to the cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP) test and video head impulse test (vHIT). The cVEMP and vHIT tests were performed once each in the absence and presence of an optical illusion. In addition, after each test, whether the individuals felt balanced was determined using a questionnaire.
RESULTS
RESULTS
cVEMP results in the presence of the optical illusion showed shortened latencies and increased amplitudes for the left side in comparison to the results in the absence of the optical illusion (p≤0.05). When vHIT results were compared, it was seen that the right lateral and bilateral anterior canal gains were increased, almost to 1.0 (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It is thought that when the visual-vestibular inputs are incompatible with each other, the sensory reweighting mechanism is activated, and this mechanism strengthens the more reliable (vestibular) inputs, while suppressing the less reliable (visual) inputs. As long as the incompatible condition persists, the sensory reweighting mechanism will continue to operate, thanks to the feedback loop from the efferent vestibular system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34167185
pii: jao.2021.00080
doi: 10.7874/jao.2021.00080
pmc: PMC8311056
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
152-158Références
J Neurophysiol. 1984 Jun;51(6):1121-36
pubmed: 6737024
Neurosci Lett. 2003 Apr 17;340(3):197-200
pubmed: 12672540
J Vestib Res. 2018;28(3-4):295-304
pubmed: 29689763
Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;159:27-42
pubmed: 30482320
Acta Otolaryngol. 2001 Jan;121(2):211-5
pubmed: 11349781
Cereb Cortex. 2008 Aug;18(8):1779-87
pubmed: 18063566
J Am Acad Audiol. 2014 Oct;25(9):814-22
pubmed: 25405837
Eur J Neurosci. 2019 Nov;50(10):3557-3565
pubmed: 31233640
Front Cell Neurosci. 2018 Nov 22;12:456
pubmed: 30524247
Exp Brain Res. 2000 Nov;135(1):12-21
pubmed: 11104123
Neuroimage. 2008 Jan 1;39(1):19-31
pubmed: 17919936
Neurosci Lett. 2005 Apr 29;379(1):23-6
pubmed: 15814192
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 14;10(12):e0145015
pubmed: 26658990
Brain Res Bull. 2003 Jun 15;60(5-6):511-41
pubmed: 12787870
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Mar;274(3):1215-1222
pubmed: 27328962
Brain. 1998 Sep;121 ( Pt 9):1749-58
pubmed: 9762962
Curr Opin Neurol. 2013 Feb;26(1):74-80
pubmed: 23254558
J Cogn Neurosci. 1996 Nov;8(6):497-506
pubmed: 23961981
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 02;9(12):e113897
pubmed: 25462216
Cereb Cortex. 2003 Sep;13(9):994-1007
pubmed: 12902399
Exp Brain Res. 2015 Dec;233(12):3613-24
pubmed: 26358122
Perception. 1996;25(5):503-4
pubmed: 8865293
Nature. 2002 Jan 24;415(6870):429-33
pubmed: 11807554
Handb Clin Neurol. 2016;137:57-66
pubmed: 27638062