scholarly journals Comparison of Postural Responses to Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation between Pilots and the General Populace

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Yang ◽  
Fang Pu ◽  
Xiaoning Lv ◽  
Shuyu Li ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Constant Current ◽  
Body Sway ◽  
Current Profile ◽  
Lateral Direction ◽  
Peak Displacement ◽  
Postural Responses ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Measured Position

Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) can be used to study the body’s response to vestibular stimuli. This study aimed to investigate whether postural responses to GVS were different between pilots and the general populace. Bilateral bipolar GVS was applied with a constant-current profile to 12 pilots and 12 control subjects via two electrodes placed over the mastoid processes. Both GVS threshold and the center of pressure’s trajectory (COP’s trajectory) were measured. Position variability of COP during spontaneous body sway and peak displacement of COP during GVS-induced body sway were calculated in the medial-lateral direction. Spontaneous body sway was slight for all subjects, and there was no significant difference in the value of COP position variability between the pilots and controls. Both the GVS threshold and magnitude of GVS-induced body deviation were similar for different GVS polarities. GVS thresholds were similar between the two groups, but the magnitude of GVS-induced body deviation in the controls was significantly larger than that in the pilots. The pilots showed less GVS-induced body deviation, meaning that pilots may have a stronger ability to suppress vestibular illusions.

Assessing head acceleration to identify a motor threshold to galvanic vestibular stimulation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youstina Mikhail ◽  
Jonathan Charron ◽  
Jean-Marc Mac Thiong ◽  
Dorothy Barthélemy
Keyword(s):  
Center Of Pressure ◽  
Vestibular Function ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Head Acceleration ◽  
Motor Threshold ◽  
Recruitment Curve ◽  
Eyes Closed ◽  
Postural Responses ◽  
Significant Difference

Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) is used to assess vestibular function, but vestibular responses can exhibit variability depending on protocols or intensities used. We measured head acceleration in healthy subjects to identify an objective motor threshold on which to base GVS intensity when assessing postural responses. Thirteen healthy right-handed subjects stood on a force platform, eyes closed, head facing forward. An accelerometer was placed on the vertex to detect head acceleration, and electromyography activity of the right soleus was recorded. GVS (200 ms; current steps 0.5;1-4mA) was applied in a binaural and bipolar configuration. 1) GVS induced a biphasic accelerometer response at a latency of 15 ms. Based on response amplitude, we constructed a recruitment curve for all participants and determined the motor threshold. In parallel, the method of limits was used to devise a more rapid approach to determine motor threshold. 2) We observed significant differences between motor threshold based on therecruitment curve and perceptual thresholds (sensation/perception of movement). No significant difference was observed between the motor threshold based on the method of limits and perceptual thresholds . 3) Using orthogonal polynomial contrasts, we observed a linear progression between multiples of the objective motor threshold (0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5x motor threshold) and the 95% confidence ellipse area, the first peak of center of pressure velocity, and the short and medium latency responses in the soleus. Hence, an objective motor threshold and a recruitment curve for GVS were determined based on head acceleration, which could increase understanding of the vestibular system.

scholarly journals Effect of Eye-Object Distance on Body Sway during Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osamu Aoki ◽  
Yoshitaka Otani ◽  
Shinichiro Morishita
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Center Of Pressure ◽  
Force Plate ◽  
Distance Effect ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Body Sway ◽  
Mean Square ◽  
Visual Condition ◽  
Object Distance

Gazing at objects at a near distance (small eye-object distance) can reduce body sway. However, whether body sway is regulated by movement in the mediolateral or anteroposterior direction remains unclear. Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) can induce body tilting in the mediolateral or anteroposterior direction. This study examined the directionality of the eye-object distance effect, using body-tilting GVS manipulations. Ten healthy subjects (aged 21.1 ± 0.3 years) stood on a force plate covered with a piece of foamed rubber and either closed their eyes or gazed at a marker located 0.5 m, 1.0 m, or 1.5 m in front of them. The GVS polarities were set to evoke rightward, forward, and backward body tilts. To compare the effects of eye-object distance in the mediolateral and anteroposterior directions, the root mean square (RMS) of the center of pressure (COP) without GVS was subtracted from the COP RMS during GVS. For swaying in the mediolateral direction, significant visual condition-related differences were found during rightward and forward GVS (p < 0.05). Thus, reductions in mediolateral body sway are more evident for smaller eye-object distances during rightward GVS. It would be appropriate to use body-tilting GVS to detect the directionality of the eye-object distance effect.

scholarly journals The Effects of Stochastic Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation on Body Sway and Muscle Activity

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akiyoshi Matsugi ◽  
Kosuke Oku ◽  
Nobuhiko Mori
Keyword(s):  
Soleus Muscle ◽  
Muscle Activity ◽  
Center Of Pressure ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
The Body ◽  
Lower Limbs ◽  
Body Sway ◽  
Eyes Open ◽  
Significant Increment

Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether galvanic vestibular stimulation with stochastic noise (nGVS) modulates the body sway and muscle activity of the lower limbs, depending on visual and somatosensory information from the foot using rubber-foam.Methods: Seventeen healthy young adults participated in the study. Each subject maintained an upright standing position on a force plate with/without rubber-foam, with their eyes open/closed, to measure the position of their foot center of pressure. Thirty minutes after baseline measurements under four possible conditions (eyes open/closed with/without rubber-foam) performed without nGVS (intensity: 1 mA, duration: 40 s), the stimulation trials (sham-nGVS/real-nGVS) were conducted under the same conditions in random order, which were then repeated a week or more later. The total center of pressure (COP) path length movement (COP-TL) and COP movement velocity in the mediolateral (Vel-ML) and anteroposterior (Vel-AP) directions were recorded for 30 s during nGVS. Furthermore, electromyography activity of the right tibial anterior muscle and soleus muscle was recorded for the same time and analyzed.Results: Three-way analysis of variance and post-hoc multiple comparison revealed a significant increment in COP-related parameters by nGVS, and a significant increment in soleus muscle activity on rubber. There was no significant effect of eye condition on any parameter.Conclusions: During nGVS (1 mA), body sway and muscle activity in the lower limb may be increased depending not on the visual condition, but on the foot somatosensory condition.

Comparison of verticality perception and postural sway induced by double temple-mastoidal and bipolar binaural 20 Hz sinusoidal galvanic vestibular stimulation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Samar Babaee ◽  
Moslem Shaabani ◽  
Mohsen Vahedi
Keyword(s):  
Postural Sway ◽  
Maximum Amplitude ◽  
Semicircular Canals ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
The Body ◽  
Body Sway ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Amplitude Change ◽  
Threshold Levels

BACKGROUND: Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) is believed to be one of the most valuable tools for studying the vestibular system. In our opinion, its combined effect on posture and perception needs to be examined more. OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of a 20 Hz sinusoidal Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (sGVS) on the body sway and subjective visual vertical (SVV) deviation through two sets of electrode montages (bipolar binaural and double temple-mastoidal stimulation) during a three-stage experiment (baseline, threshold, and supra-threshold levels). METHODS: While the individuals (32 normal individuals, 10 males, the mean age of 25.37±3.00 years) were standing on a posturography device and SVV goggles were put on, the parameters of the body sway and SVV deviation were measured simultaneously. Following the baseline stage (measuring without stimulation), the parameters were investigated during the threshold and supra-threshold stages (1 mA above the threshold) for 20 seconds. This was done separately for each electrode montage. Then, the results were compared between the three experimental stages and the two electrode montages. RESULTS: In both electrode montages, “the maximum amplitude” of the mediolateral (ML) and anteroposterior (AP) body sway decreased and increased in the threshold and supra-threshold stages, respectively, compared to the baseline stage. Comparison of the amount of  “amplitude change” caused by each electrode montages showed that the double temple-mastoidal stimulation induced a significantly greater amplitude change in body sway during both threshold and supra-threshold stages (relative to the baseline stage). The absolute mean values of the SVV deviation were significantly different between the baseline and supra-threshold levels in both electrode montages. The SVV deviation in double temple-mastoidal stimulation was a bit greater than that in the bipolar binaural stimulation. CONCLUSION: Double temple-mastoidal stimulation has induced greater amount of change in the body sway and SVV deviation. This may be due to the more effective stimulation of the otoliths than semicircular canals.

scholarly journals A shared neural integrator for human posture control

2017 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. 894-903 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. E. Haggerty ◽  
A. R. Wu ◽  
K. H. Sienko ◽  
A. D. Kuo
Keyword(s):  
Postural Control ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Posture Control ◽  
Neural Integrator ◽  
Standing Posture ◽  
Sensory Stimuli ◽  
Human Posture ◽  
Postural Responses

Control of standing posture requires fusion of multiple inputs including visual, vestibular, somatosensory, and other sensors, each having distinct dynamics. We propose that postural control also entails a shared neural integrator. To test this theory, we perturbed standing subjects with classic sensory stimuli (optokinetic and galvanic vestibular stimulation) and found that our proposed shared filter reproduces the dynamics of subjects’ postural responses.

Effect of galvanic vestibular stimulation on human postural responses during support surface translations

1995 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 896-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. T. Inglis ◽  
C. L. Shupert ◽  
F. Hlavacka ◽  
F. B. Horak
Keyword(s):  
Vestibular System ◽  
Equilibrium Position ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Support Surface ◽  
Quiet Stance ◽  
Galvanic Current ◽  
Postural Responses ◽  
Platform Translation

1. We investigated the role of the vestibular system in postural control by combining galvanic vestibular stimulation (0.2-0.5 mA) with platform translations in standing subjects. Vestibular stimulation delivered 500 ms before and continuously during the platform translation produced little change in the earliest center of pressure (COP) and center of mass (COM) movements in response to platform translations, but resulted in large changes during the execution of the postural movement and in the final equilibrium position. 2. Vestibular stimulation produced anterior or posterior shifts in the position of COP and COM, depending on the polarity of the galvanic current. These shifts were larger during platform translations than during quiet stance. The peak of these shifts in COP and COM occurred at 1.5-2.5 s after the onset of platform translation, and increased in magnitude with increasing platform velocity. The final equilibrium positions of COP and COM were also shifted, but these shifts were smaller and not dependent on platform velocity. 3. These results imply that a tonic step of galvanic current to the vestibular system can change the final equilibrium position for an automatic postural response. Furthermore, these results indicate that the vestibular system may play a larger role in interpreting sensory reafference during postural movements, and especially during fast postural movements, than in controlling quiet stance. Finally, these results indicate that the vestibular system does not play a critical role in triggering the earliest postural responses, but it may be critical in establishing an internal reference for verticality.

scholarly journals Time course of the subjective visual vertical during sustained optokinetic and galvanic vestibular stimulation

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (2) ◽  
pp. 788-796
Author(s):  
Nynke Niehof ◽  
Florian Perdreau ◽  
Mathieu Koppen ◽  
W. Pieter Medendorp
Keyword(s):  
Time Course ◽  
Head Tilt ◽  
Inertial Force ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Constant Current ◽  
Subjective Visual Vertical ◽  
Time Constants ◽  
Visual Vertical ◽  
Over Time

The brain is thought to use rotation cues from both the vestibular and optokinetic system to disambiguate the gravito-inertial force, as measured by the otoliths, into components of linear acceleration and gravity direction relative to the head. Hence, when the head is stationary and upright, an erroneous percept of tilt arises during optokinetic roll stimulation (OKS) or when an artificial canal-like signal is delivered by means of galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). It is still unknown how this percept is affected by the combined presence of both cues or how it develops over time. Here, we measured the time course of the subjective visual vertical (SVV), as a proxy of perceived head tilt, in human participants ( n = 16) exposed to constant-current GVS (1 and 2 mA, cathodal and anodal) and constant-velocity OKS (30°/s clockwise and counterclockwise) or their combination. In each trial, participants continuously adjusted the orientation of a visual line, which drifted randomly, to Earth vertical. We found that both GVS and OKS evoke an exponential time course of the SVV. These time courses have different amplitudes and different time constants, 4 and 7 s respectively, and combine linearly when the two stimulations are presented together. We discuss these results in the framework of observer theory and Bayesian state estimation. NEW & NOTEWORTHY While it is known that both roll optokinetic stimuli and galvanic vestibular stimulation affect the percept of vertical, how their effects combine and develop over time is still unclear. Here we show that both effects combined linearly but are characterized by different time constants, which we discuss from a probabilistic perspective.

scholarly journals Effects of Noisy Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation on Standing Balance – No Evidence for Stochastic Resonance in Young Healthy Adults

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenz Assländer ◽  
Louis-Solal Giboin ◽  
Markus Gruber ◽  
Roman Schniepp ◽  
Max Wühr
Keyword(s):  
Stochastic Resonance ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Body Sway ◽  
Response Dynamics ◽  
Eyes Closed ◽  
Performance Metric ◽  
Performance Curves

Abstract Noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation (nGVS) at imperceptible levels has been shown to reduce body sway. This improvement was commonly attributed to the mechanism of stochastic resonance (SR). However, it has never been explicitly tested whether nGVS-induced effects on body sway consistently follow a SR-like bell-shaped performance curve with optimal improvements at intermediate noise intensities. To test this, body sway in 21 young healthy participants was measured during varying nGVS amplitudes while standing with eyes closed in 3 conditions (quiet stance, sway referencing, sinusoidal platform tilts). Presence of SR-compatible response dynamics in each trial was assessed (1) by a goodness-of-fit analysis using an established SR-curve model and (2) by ratings from 3 human experts. In accordance to theory, we found reductions of body sway at one nGVS amplitude in most trials (75-95%). However, only few trials exhibited SR-compatible bell-shaped performance curves with increasing noise amplitudes (10-33%). Instead, body sway measures rather fluctuated randomly across nGVS amplitudes. This implies that, at least in young healthy adults, nGVS effects on body sway are incompatible with SR. Thus, previously reported reductions of body sway at particular nGVS intensities more likely result from inherent variations of the performance metric or by other yet unknown mechanisms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document