The effect of galvanic vestibular stimulation on path trajectory during a path integration task

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
pp. 1550-1560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanya Karn ◽  
Michael E Cinelli
Keyword(s):  
Path Integration ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Final Position ◽  
Completion Task ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Triangle Completion

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) on path trajectory and body rotation during a triangle completion task. Participants ( N = 17, female, 18-30 years) completed the triangle completion task in virtual reality using two different size triangles. GVS was delivered at three times each participant’s threshold in either the left or right direction prior to the final leg of the triangle and continued until the participant reached their final position. Whole body kinematics were collected using an NDI Optotrak motion tracking system. Results revealed a significant main effect of GVS on arrival error such that no GVS (NGVS) had significantly smaller arrival errors than when GVS was administered. There was also a significant main effect of GVS on angular error such that NGVS had significantly smaller error than GVSaway and GVStowards. There was no significant difference between GVS trials in path variability during the final leg on route to the final position. These results demonstrate that vestibular perturbation reduced the accuracy of the triangle completion task, affecting path trajectory and body position during a path integration task in the absence of visual cues.

scholarly journals Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation Induces a Spatial Bias in Whole-body Position Estimates

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 981-983
Author(s):  
Mitesh Patel ◽  
R. Edward Roberts ◽  
Qadeer Arshad ◽  
Maroof Ahmed ◽  
Mohammed U. Riyaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Position ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Spatial Bias

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 Testing models of path integration in a triangle completion task

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 1153-1153 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Chrastil ◽  
W. Warren
Keyword(s):  
Path Integration ◽  
Completion Task ◽  
Triangle Completion

Body position with respect to the head or body position in space is coded by lumbar interneurons

1985 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Suzuki ◽  
S. J. Timerick ◽  
V. J. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Body Position ◽  
Polarization Vector ◽  
Head Rotation ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Body Tilt ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Vestibular Response ◽  
Maximal Sensitivity ◽  
Frequency Of Stimulation ◽  
Decerebrate Cats

In decerebrate cats, we have studied the response of neurons in the L3-L6 segments of the spinal cord to stimulation of neck and vestibular receptors. Neck receptors were stimulated by head rotation in labyrinthectomized cats or by body rotation with the head fixed in labyrinth-intact cats. Vestibular receptors were stimulated by whole-body tilt in the latter preparation. Most neurons were located outside the motoneuron nuclei and were arbitrarily classified as interneurons. Combinations of roll and pitch stimuli at frequencies of 0.1 or 0.05 Hz were used to determine the horizontal component of the polarization vector, i.e., the best direction of tilt, for each neuron. Two types of stimuli were used; rotation of a fixed angle of tilt around the head or body ("wobble," Ref. 22) or sinusoidal stimuli in several planes. Polarization vectors of the responses to neck stimulation were widely distributed; different neurons responded best to roll, pitch, and angles in between. For every neuron, the amplitude of the response decreased as the cosine of the angle between the direction of maximal sensitivity and the plane of the stimulus. The direction of the vector remained stable as the frequency of stimulation was varied. Neurons with different vectors had similar dynamics that resembled those of cervical interneurons (27). Many neurons responded to both neck and vestibular stimulation, although the vestibular response usually had a much lower gain. Neck and vestibular vectors were approximately opposite in direction. We suggest that neck responses originate in receptors, probably spindles, in perivertebral muscles. Each of these muscles presumably is best stretched by a particular direction of pull. It seems likely that convergence from receptors in selected muscles determines the direction of a spinal neuron's vector. Vestibular responses probably are due mainly to activity in otolith afferents.

scholarly journals Reduction of cybersickness during and immediately following noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Séamas Weech ◽  
Travis Wall ◽  
Michael Barnett-Cowan
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Modality ◽  
Sensory Stimulation ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Sensory Conflict ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Vestibular Cues ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Vestibular Organs

AbstractThe mechanism underlying cybersickness during virtual reality (VR) exposure is still poorly understood, although research has highlighted a causal role for visual-vestibular sensory conflict. Recently established methods for reducing cybersickness include galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) to mimic absent vestibular cues in VR, or vibration of the vestibular organs to add noise to the sensory modality. Here, we examined if applying noise to the vestibular system using noisy-current GVS also affects sickness severity in VR. Participants were exposed to one of two VR games that were classified as either moderate or intense with respect to their nauseogenic effects. The VR content lasted for 50 minutes and was broken down into 3 blocks: 30 minutes of gameplay during exposure to either noisy GVS (±1750 μA) or sham stimulation (0 μA), and 10 minutes of gameplay before and after this block. We characterized the effects of noisy GVS in terms of post-minus-pre-exposure cybersickness scores. For the intense VR content, we found a main effect of noisy vestibular stimulation. Participants reported lower cybersickness scores during and directly after exposure to GVS. However, this difference was quickly extinguished (∼3-6 min) after further exposure to VR, indicating that sensory adaptation did not persist after stimulation was terminated. In contrast, there were no differences between the sham and GVS group for the moderate VR content. The results show the potential for reducing cybersickness with simple non-invasive sensory stimulation. We discuss the prospect that noise-induced sensory re-weighting is responsible for the observed effects, and address other possible mechanisms.

scholarly journals Path Integration from Optic Flow and Body Senses in a Homing Task

Perception ◽  
10.1068/p3311 ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa J Kearns ◽  
William H Warren ◽  
Andrew P Duchon ◽  
Michael J Tarr
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Environment ◽  
Optic Flow ◽  
Path Integration ◽  
Proprioceptive Information ◽  
Completion Task ◽  
Triangle Completion ◽  
Joystick Control

We examined the roles of information from optic flow and body senses (eg vestibular and proprioceptive information) for path integration, using a triangle completion task in a virtual environment. In two experiments, the contribution of optic flow was isolated by using a joystick control. Five circular arenas were used for testing: (B) both floor and wall texture; (F) floor texture only, reducing information for rotation; (W) wall texture only, reducing information for translation; (N) a no texture control condition; and (P) an array of posts. The results indicate that humans can use optic flow for path integration and are differentially influenced by rotational and translational flow. In a third experiment, participants actively walked in arenas B, F, and N, so body senses were also available. Performance shifted from a pattern of underturning to overturning and exhibited decreased variability, similar responses with and without optic flow, and no attrition. The results indicate that path integration can be performed by integrating optic flow, but when information from body senses is available it appears to dominate.

scholarly journals No Impact of Stochastic Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation on Arterial Pressure and Heart Rate Variability in the Elderly Population

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akiyoshi Matsugi ◽  
Koji Nagino ◽  
Tomoyuki Shiozaki ◽  
Yohei Okada ◽  
Nobuhiko Mori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Arterial Pressure ◽  
Elderly Population ◽  
Nervous Activity ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Body Tilt ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Healthy Elderly

ObjectiveNoisy galvanic vestibular stimulation (nGVS) is often used to improve postural stability in disorders, such as neurorehabilitation montage. For the safe use of nGVS, we investigated whether arterial pressure (AP) and heart rate vary during static supine and slow whole-body tilt with random nGVS (0.4 mA, 0.1–640 Hz, gaussian distribution) in a healthy elderly population.MethodsThis study was conducted with a double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over design. Seventeen healthy older adults were recruited. They were asked to maintain a static supine position on a bed for 10 min, and the bed was tilted up (TU) to 70 degrees within 30 s. After maintaining this position for 3 min, the bed was passively tilted down (TD) within 30 s. Real-nGVS or sham-nGVS was applied from 4 to 15 min. The time course of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and RR interval variability (RRIV) were analyzed to estimate the autonomic nervous activity.ResultnGVS and/or time, including pre-/post-event (nGVS-start, TU, and TD), had no impact on MAP and RRIV-related parameters. Further, there was no evidence supporting the argument that nGVS induces pain, vertigo/dizziness, and uncomfortable feeling.ConclusionnGVS may not affect the AP and RRIV during static position and whole-body tilting or cause pain, vertigo/dizziness, and discomfort in the elderly.

Somatosensory Loss Increases Vestibulospinal Sensitivity

2001 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 575-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. B. Horak ◽  
F. Hlavacka
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Vestibular System ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Body Tilt ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Galvanic Current ◽  
Galvanic Stimulation ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
Postural Orientation

To determine whether subjects with somatosensory loss show a compensatory increase in sensitivity to vestibular stimulation, we compared the amplitude of postural lean in response to four different intensities of bipolar galvanic stimulation in subjects with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PNP) and age-matched control subjects. To determine whether healthy and neuropathic subjects show similar increases in sensitivity to galvanic vestibular stimulation when standing on unstable surfaces, both groups were exposed to galvanic stimulation while standing on a compliant foam surface. In these experiments, a 3-s pulse of galvanic current was administered to subjects standing with eyes closed and their heads turned toward one shoulder (anodal current on the forward mastoid). Anterior body tilt, as measured by center of foot pressure (CoP), increased proportionately with increasing galvanic vestibular stimulation intensity for all subjects. Subjects with peripheral neuropathy showed larger forward CoP displacement in response to galvanic stimulation than control subjects. The largest differences between neuropathy and control subjects were at the highest galvanic intensities, indicating an increased sensitivity to vestibular stimulation. Neuropathy subjects showed a larger increase in sensitivity to vestibular stimulation when standing on compliant foam than control subjects. The effect of galvanic stimulation was larger on the movement of the trunk segment in space than on the body's center of mass (CoM) angle, suggesting that the vestibular system acts to control trunk orientation rather than to control whole body posture. This study provides evidence for an increase in the sensitivity of the postural control system to vestibular stimulation when somatosensory information from the surface is disrupted either by peripheral neuropathy or by standing on an unstable surface. Simulations from a simple model of postural orientation incorporating feedback from the vestibular and somatosensory systems suggest that the increase in body lean in response to galvanic current in subjects with neuropathy could be reproduced only if central vestibular gain was increased when peripheral somatosensory gain was decreased. The larger effects of galvanic vestibular stimulation on the trunk than on the body's CoM suggest that the vestibular system may act to control postural orientation via control of the trunk in space.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document