Literature DB >> 34365845

Continuous Head Motion is a Greater Motor Control Challenge than Transient Head Motion in Patients with Loss of Vestibular Function.

Lin Wang1, Omid A Zobeiri2, Jennifer L Millar3, Wagner Souza Silva1,3, Michael C Schubert3,4, Kathleen E Cullen1,4,5,6.   

Abstract

Background. The vestibular system is vital for gaze stability via the vestibulo-ocular reflex, which generates compensatory eye motion in the direction opposite to head motion. Consequently, individuals with peripheral vestibular loss demonstrate impaired gaze stability that reduces functional capacity and quality of life. To facilitate patients' compensatory strategies, two classes of gaze stabilization exercises are often prescribed: (i) transient (eg, ballistic) and (ii) continuous. However, the relative benefits of these two classes of exercises are not well understood. Objective. To quantify head motion kinematics in patients with vestibular loss while they performed both classes of exercises. Methods. Using inertial measurement units, head movements of 18 vestibular schwannoma patients were measured before and after surgical deafferentation and compared with age-matched controls. Results. We found that the head movement during both classes of exercises paralleled those of natural head movement recorded during daily activities. However, head movement patterns were more informative for continuous than transient exercises in distinguishing patients from healthy controls. Specifically, we observed coupling between kinematic measures in control subjects that was absent in patients for continuous but not transient head motion exercises. In addition, kinematic measures (eg, cycle duration) were predictive of standard clinical measures for continuous but not transient head motion exercises. Conclusions. Our data suggest that performing continuous head motion is a greater motor control challenge than transient head motion in patients with less reliable vestibular feedback during the sub-acute stage of recovery, which may also prove to be a reliable measure of progression in vestibular rehabilitation protocols.

Entities:  

Keywords:  gaze rehabilitation; head movements; unilateral vestibular deafferentation; vestibular schwannoma

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34365845      PMCID: PMC8440448          DOI: 10.1177/15459683211034758

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair        ISSN: 1545-9683            Impact factor:   3.919


  40 in total

1.  Human control of an inverted pendulum: is continuous control necessary? Is intermittent control effective? Is intermittent control physiological?

Authors:  Ian D Loram; Henrik Gollee; Martin Lakie; Peter J Gawthrop
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 2.  Is vestibular rehabilitation effective in improving dizziness and function after unilateral peripheral vestibular hypofunction? An abridged version of a Cochrane Review.

Authors:  Susan Hillier; Michelle McDonnell
Journal:  Eur J Phys Rehabil Med       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 2.874

3.  Neuronal detection thresholds during vestibular compensation: contributions of response variability and sensory substitution.

Authors:  Mohsen Jamali; Diana E Mitchell; Alexis Dale; Jerome Carriot; Soroush G Sadeghi; Kathleen E Cullen
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  Horizontal head impulse test detects gentamicin vestibulotoxicity.

Authors:  K P Weber; S T Aw; M J Todd; L A McGarvie; I S Curthoys; G M Halmagyi
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 9.910

5.  Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization.

Authors:  J J Rieser; H L Pick; D H Ashmead; A E Garing
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Correlation between the dizziness handicap inventory and balance performance during the acute phase of unilateral vestibulopathy.

Authors:  Eun Jin Son; Dong-Hee Lee; Jeong-Hoon Oh; Jae-Hyun Seo; Eun-Ju Jeon
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 1.808

Review 7.  Rapid adaptation of multisensory integration in vestibular pathways.

Authors:  Jerome Carriot; Mohsen Jamali; Kathleen E Cullen
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-16

8.  Envelope statistics of self-motion signals experienced by human subjects during everyday activities: Implications for vestibular processing.

Authors:  Jérome Carriot; Mohsen Jamali; Kathleen E Cullen; Maurice J Chacron
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Effects of the amount of practice and time interval between practice sessions on the retention of internal models.

Authors:  Chiharu Yamada; Yoshihiro Itaguchi; Kazuyoshi Fukuzawa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Improvement After Vestibular Rehabilitation Not Explained by Improved Passive VOR Gain.

Authors:  Jennifer L Millar; Yoav Gimmon; Dale Roberts; Michael C Schubert
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 4.003

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.