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.

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.

Effects of perceptible and imperceptible galvanic vestibular stimulation on the postural control of patients with bilateral vestibulopathy

2020 ◽  
Vol 267 (8) ◽  
pp. 2383-2397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Sprenger ◽  
Peer Spliethoff ◽  
Matthias Rother ◽  
Björn Machner ◽  
Christoph Helmchen
Keyword(s):  
Postural Control ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Bilateral Vestibulopathy

scholarly journals Effects of Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation on Visual Verticality and Standing Posture Differ Based on the Polarity of the Stimulation and Hemispheric Lesion Side in Patients With Stroke

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takamichi Tohyama ◽  
Kunitsugu Kondo ◽  
Yohei Otaka
Keyword(s):  
Vestibular System ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Balance Control ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Standing Posture ◽  
Postural Asymmetry ◽  
Hemisphere Lesion ◽  
Lesion Side

Introduction: There is growing evidence supporting the relationship of vertical misperception and poor balance control with asymmetrical standing posture in patients with stroke. Although the vestibular system has been shown to be responsible for vertical misperception and balance disorders, the effect of galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) on both vertical misperception and postural asymmetry after stroke remains elusive. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of GVS on visual verticality and postural asymmetry after stroke and to clarify whether the effects differ depending on the polarity of the stimulation and hemispheric lesion side.Methods: We measured the subjective visual vertical (SVV) and body weight distribution on each foot in an upright stance in 24 patients with a hemispheric stroke (10 with a left hemisphere lesion and 14 with a right hemisphere lesion) and nine age-matched healthy controls. During the measurements, bipolar GVS (1.5 mA) was applied over the bilateral mastoid processes in three stimulation conditions: contralesional-anodal and ipsilesional-cathodal vestibular stimulation, ipsilesional-anodal and contralesional-cathodal vestibular stimulation, and no stimulation. To examine whether GVS modulates visual verticality and standing posture, SVV and weight-bearing in the three conditions were analyzed.Results: During no stimulation, the SVV deviated to the contralesional side in patients with a right hemisphere lesion, while more weight-bearing was observed on the ipsilesional limb than on the contralesional limb in both patient groups than in the controls. The SVV was modulated by reversing the polarity of GVS in all the groups when the cathodal stimulus side was either ipsilateral or contralateral to the lesion while the ipsilesional-cathodal vestibular stimulation reduced weight-bearing asymmetry in only the patients with a right hemisphere lesion.Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that the effects of GVS on the SVV and standing posture differ depending on the polarity of GVS and the hemispheric lesion side. Patients with a right hemisphere lesion have difficulty maintaining their preferred standing posture under visual verticality modulation evoked by GVS. The application of GVS may clarify whether the vestibular system has neural redundancy after stroke to suppress any effects of the stimulation, including modulation of the visual verticality, on balance.

scholarly journals Questioning the lasting effect of galvanic vestibular stimulation on postural control

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. e0224619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mujda Nooristani ◽  
Maxime Maheu ◽  
Marie-Soleil Houde ◽  
Benoit-Antoine Bacon ◽  
François Champoux
Keyword(s):  
Postural Control ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Lasting Effect

Effect of noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation on center of pressure sway of static standing posture

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasuto Inukai ◽  
Naofumi Otsuru ◽  
Mitsuhiro Masaki ◽  
Kei Saito ◽  
Shota Miyaguchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Center Of Pressure ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Standing Posture

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.

Habituation to galvanic vestibular stimulation for analysis of postural control abilities in gymnasts

2004 ◽  
Vol 366 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan G.T Balter ◽  
Robert J Stokroos ◽  
Ellen Akkermans ◽  
Herman Kingma
Keyword(s):  
Postural Control ◽  
Vestibular Stimulation ◽  
Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document