Literature DB >> 11677754

Ocular counterrolling differs in dynamic and static stimulation.

C H Markham1, S G Diamond.   

Abstract

In the past, the majority of ocular counterrolling (OCR) studies were performed with subjects tilted and held statically. Studies in our laboratory have focused on dynamic rotation below the threshold of the semicircular canals. The present study compares OCR in both static and dynamic modes. Ten normal subjects, mean age 50.9 years (SD 16.2 years), underwent rotation about their naso-occipital axis to 90 degrees to the right and left, at a constant velocity of 3 degrees/s and an acceleration of 0.2 degree/s2. Subsequently, they were tilted at the same acceleration and velocity to 30 degrees, 60 degrees, 90 degrees, 60 degrees, 30 degrees and 0 degree to both sides and held in each position for 1 min. The results showed that OCR varied substantially in the two protocols. The most dramatic difference was disconjugacy in the static mode, with the two eyes differing by as much as 4 degrees, in contrast to the generally conjugate OCR in the dynamic mode. Amplitudes also tended to differ, some subjects having greater and others lesser OCR in one mode vis-à-vis the other. Possible explanations for these differences may be found in the work of Hudspeth and colleagues, who found that mechanical deflection of the bullfrog saccula resulted in gradated responses in the underlying hair cells. Further, hair cells in the process of active bending led to different responses than those in a fixed position. Possibly in humans, too, the otoconia do not maintain a fixed relation to the underlying hair cells. Additionally, this study confirms our earlier finding of independent control in the two eyes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Non-programmatic

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11677754     DOI: 10.1080/000164801750388225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl        ISSN: 0365-5237


  5 in total

1.  Effects of earth-fixed vs head-fixed targets on static ocular counterroll.

Authors:  Manokaraananthan Chandrakumar; Zahra Hirji; Herbert C Goltz; Giuseppe Mirabella; Alan W Blakeman; Linda Colpa; Agnes M F Wong
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-04

2.  Frame of reference for visual perception in young infants during change of body position.

Authors:  Keisuke Kushiro; Gentaro Taga; Hama Watanabe
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-08-02       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Effects of age, viewing distance and target complexity on static ocular counterroll.

Authors:  Herbert C Goltz; Giuseppe Mirabella; Joanne C Y Leung; Alan W Blakeman; Linda Colpa; Khaled Abuhaleeqa; Agnes M F Wong
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-05-03       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Ocular counterrolling: an indicator of bilateral vestibulopathy.

Authors:  Manuel Oliva Dominguez; Juan Bartual Magro; Juan Bartual Pastor
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Ocular counter-roll is less affected in experienced versus novice space crew after long-duration spaceflight.

Authors:  Catho Schoenmaekers; Chloë De Laet; Ludmila Kornilova; Dmitrii Glukhikh; Steven Moore; Hamish MacDougall; Ivan Naumov; Erik Fransen; Leander Wille; Steven Jillings; Floris L Wuyts
Journal:  NPJ Microgravity       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.970

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.