IntroductionMal de Debarquement Syndrome (MdDS) is a neurological condition typically characterized by a sensation of motion, that persists longer than a month following exposure to passive motion (e.g., cruise, flight, etc.). The most common form of MdDS is motion triggered (MT). However, recently it has been acknowledged that some patients develop typical MdDS symptoms without an apparent motion trigger. These cases are identified here as spontaneous or other onset (SO) MdDS. This study aimed to address similarities and differences between the MdDS subtypes. Diagnostic procedures were compared and extensive diagnostic guidelines were proposed. Second, potential triggers and associated psychological components of MdDS were revealed.MethodsThis was a retrospective online survey study for MT and SO MdDS patients. Participants were required to respond to a set of comprehensive questions regarding epidemiological details, as well as the diagnostic procedures and onset triggers.ResultsThere were 370 patients who participated in the surveys. It is indicated that MdDS is often misdiagnosed; more so for the SO group. In addition to the apparent self-motion, both groups reported associated levels of stress, anxiety and depression.DiscussionIt appears at present that both MdDS subtypes are still poorly recognised. This was the first attempt to evaluate the diagnostic differences between MdDS subtypes and to propose a set of comprehensive diagnostic guidelines for both MdDS subtypes. In addition, the current research addressed that associated symptoms such as stress, anxiety and depression should also be considered when treating patients. We hope this study will help the medical community to broaden their awareness and diagnostic knowledge of this condition.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00415-017-8725-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: Mal de Debarquement Syndrome (MdDS) is a condition characterized by a perception of self-motion in the absence of a stimulus, with two onset types: Motion-Triggered and Spontaneous. Currently, the pathophysiology is unknown and consequently, the therapeutic options are limited. One proposed treatment protocol, developed by Dai and colleagues is based on optokinetic stimulation, which aims to re-adapt the vestibular ocular reflex. This study aimed to reproduce the treatment protocol developed by Dai and colleagues and to assess if a placebo effect is present in the treatment protocol and lastly, aimed to further investigate the treatment on MdDS patient outcomes.Method: Twenty-five MdDS patients (13 Motion-Triggered and 12 Spontaneous) were exposed to 5 consecutive days of optokinetic treatment (consisting of exposure to optokinetic stimuli with head movements). Eleven of these 25 patients were also exposed to 2 days of a sham treatment prior to the OKN treatment. Posturography measurements and reported symptoms [e.g., using the visual analog scale (VAS)] of patients were assessed throughout the treatment. Posturography data of the patients was compared with the data of 20 healthy controls.Results: No placebo effect was recorded with any changes in postural data and VAS scale. After the optokinetic treatment, a significant improvement in postural control was observed in 48% of patients, of whom 70% were of the Motion-Triggered subtype (p-values: Area under the Curve—Anterior Posterior < 0.001; Area under the Curve—Medio Lateral p < 0.001, Confidence Ellipse Area (CEA) < 0.001, Velocity < 0.001).Conclusion: The protocol was effective in approximately half of the MdDS patients that took part in the study, with no placebo effect recorded. The Motion-Triggered group responded better to treatment than the Spontaneous group. In addition to this, this study indicates that the greatest postural changes occur within the first 3 days of treatment, suggesting that a shorter protocol is possible. Overall, these findings support what was previously observed in Dai's studies, that optokinetic stimulation can reduce and ease self-motion perception in those with MdDS. Thus, validating the reproducibility of this protocol, suggesting that a consistent and uncomplicated implementation across treatment centers is possible.

Excessive exposure to loud noise can damage the cochlea and create a hearing loss. These pathologies coincide with a range of CNS changes including reorganisation of frequency representation, alterations in the pattern of spontaneous activity and changed expression of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters. Moreover, damage to the cochlea is often accompanied by acoustic disorders such as hyperacusis and tinnitus, suggesting that one or more of these neuronal changes may be involved in these disorders, although the mechanisms remain unknown. We tested the hypothesis that excessive noise exposure increases expression of markers of excitation and plasticity, and decreases expression of inhibitory markers over a 32-day recovery period. Adult rats (n = 25) were monaurally exposed to a loud noise (16 kHz, 1/10th octave band pass (115 dB SPL)) for 1-hour, or left as non-exposed controls (n = 5). Animals were euthanased at either 0, 4, 8, 16 or 32 days following acoustic trauma. We used Western Blots to quantify protein levels of GABAA receptor subunit α1 (GABAAα1), Glutamic-Acid Decarboxylase-67 (GAD-67), N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptor subunit 2A (NR2A), Calbindin (Calb1) and Growth Associated Protein 43 (GAP-43) in the Auditory Cortex (AC), Inferior Colliculus (IC) and Dorsal Cochlear Nucleus (DCN). Compared to sham-exposed controls, noise-exposed animals had significantly (p<0.05): lower levels of GABAAα1 in the contralateral AC at day-16 and day-32, lower levels of GAD-67 in the ipsilateral DCN at day-4, lower levels of Calb1 in the ipsilateral DCN at day-0, lower levels of GABAAα1 in the ipsilateral AC at day-4 and day-32. GAP-43 was reduced in the ipsilateral AC for the duration of the experiment. These complex fluctuations in protein expression suggests that for at least a month following acoustic trauma the auditory system is adapting to a new pattern of sensory input.