Influence of head position and proprioceptive cues on short latency postural reflexes evoked by galvanic stimulation of the human labyrinth

Nashner, Lewis M.; Wolfson, Paul

doi:10.1016/0006-8993(74)90276-5

Cited by 347 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, a reference frame transformation might take place centrally because day-to-day functions often require knowledge of body position, orientation, and movement. For example, systematic alterations in vestibulospinal reflex properties after altered static orientations of headon-trunk have been reported (Nashner and Wolfson, 1974;Kennedy and Inglis, 2002). In addition, information on body orientation and movement is also important for the perception of self-motion and location of objects in extra-personal space (Lackner and Graybiel, 1978;Mergner et al, 1991Mergner et al, , 1992.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Reference Frames for Motion in the Primate Cerebellum

Shaikh¹,

Hui²,

Angelaki³

2004

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of body motion through space is necessary for spatial orientation, self-motion perception, and postural control. Yet, sensory afferent signals may not directly provide such information to the brain. Because motion detected by the vestibular end organs is encoded in a head-fixed frame of reference, a coordinate transformation is thus required to encode body motion. In this study, we investigated whether cerebellar motion-sensitive neurons encode the translation of the body through space. We systematically changed both the direction of motion relative to the body and the static orientation of the head relative to the trunk. The activities of motion-sensitive neurons in the most medial of the deep cerebellar nuclei, the rostral fastigial nucleus, were compared with those in the brainstem vestibular nuclei. We found a distributed representation of reference frames for motion in the rostral fastigial nucleus, in contrast to cells in the vestibular nuclei, which primarily encoded motion in a head-fixed reference frame. This differential representation of motionrelated information implies potential differences in the functional roles of these areas.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Reference Frames for Motion in the Primate Cerebellum

Shaikh¹,

Hui²,

Angelaki³

2004

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lund & Broberg (1983) proposed that GVS-evoked input acts as an error signal. This idea stems from the critical observation that the direction of the induced body-sway response is governed by the angular position of the head in the horizontal plane (yaw) relative to the feet (Nashner & Wolfson, 1974;Lund & Broberg, 1983;Pastor et al 1993). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, the CNS appears to extract some meaning from the input since the motor response is well organized and highly adaptable. For example, the pattern and size of response is known to be shaped by the nature of the underlying motor task (Britton, Day, Brown, Rothwell, Thompson & Marsden, 1993;Fitzpatrick, Burke & Gandevia, 1994), the parts of the body involved in the task (Britton et al 1993), the availability of other sensory inputs (Britton et al 1993) and the direction in which the head is facing with respect to the feet (Nashner & Wolfson, 1974;Lund & Broberg, 1983;Pastor, Day & Marsden, 1993). In the present study we address two interrelated questions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human body‐segment tilts induced by galvanic stimulation: a vestibularly driven balance protection mechanism.

Day¹,

Cauquil²,

Bartolomei³

et al. 1997

The Journal of Physiology

272

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. We have studied the effects of changes in posture on the motor response to galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). The purpose of the experiments was to investigate whether the function of the GVS-evoked response is to stabilize the body or the head in space. Subjects faced forwards with eyes closed standing with various stance widths and sitting. In all cases the GVS-evoked response consisted of a sway of the body towards the anodal ear. 2. In the first set of experiments the response was measured from changes in (i) electromyographic activity of hip and ankle muscles, (ii) the lateral ground reaction force, and (iii) lateral motion of the body at the level of the neck (C7). For all measurements the response became smaller as the feet were placed further apart. 3. In the second set of experiments we measured the GVS-evoked tilts of the head, torso and pelvis. The basic response consisted of a tilt in space (anodal ear down) of all three segments. The head tilted more than the trunk and the trunk tilted more than the pelvis producing a leaning and bending of the body towards the anodal ear. This change in posture was sustained for the duration of the stimulus. 4. The tilt of all three segments was reduced by increasing the stance width. This was due to a reduction in evoked tilt of the pelvis, the bending of the upper body remaining relatively unchanged. Changing from a standing to a sitting posture produced additional reductions in tilt by reducing the degree of upper body bending. 5. The results indicate that the response is organized to stabilize the body rather than the head in space. We suggest that GVS produces a vestibular input akin to that experienced on an inclined support surface and that the function of the response is to counter any threat to balance by keeping the centre of mass of the body within safe limits.Passing a small current across the mastoid processes stimulates the vestibular system and in standing subjects evokes a sway of the body. This 'galvanic vestibular stimulation' (GVS) acts by modulating the spontaneous firing of vestibular afferents, increasing their firing frequency on

show abstract

“…As a result, data from eleven subjects were included in further analyses. The onset latencies of the SL and ML responses were within the range set by our defining criteria (SL: 41–75 ms and ML: 88–128 ms) and reflex amplitudes were comparable to other studies even with the head facing forward as opposed to over the shoulder, which is the orientation more commonly used to evoke vestibular reflexes (Britton et al., 1993; Muise et al., 2012; Nashner & Wolfson, 1974; Watson & Colebatch, 1997; Welgampola & Colebatch, 2001). SL amplitudes ranged from 1.7% to 23.2% of background EMG and ML amplitudes ranging from 3.1% to 29.1% of background (Welgampola & Colebatch, 2001; : (SL: 1%–36.1%; ML: 3.5%–25.9%), Muise et al., 2012 (SL: 3.7%–18.9%; ML: 5.8%–58.8%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is literature to suggest that the SL response may not be consistent or reliable when the vestibular stimulus is below 2 mA (Ali, Rowen, & Iles, 2003; Fitzpatrick et al., 1994). Additionally, the quality of the reflexes may have been compromised with head orientation, as the reflexes are obtainable [as evidenced by the results of our study and other experiments (Dakin, Son, Inglis, & Blouin, 2007; Day et al., 1997; Forbes et al., 2016; Nashner & Wolfson, 1974)], yet not as prominent in the soleus muscle with the head facing forward (Fitzpatrick et al., 1994). Most studies examining vestibular reflexes have subjects stand with their head facing over the shoulder (Britton et al., 1993; Fitzpatrick et al., 1994; Lund & Broberg, 1983; Nashner & Wolfson, 1974; Welgampola & Colebatch, 2001), however, we opted to test the reflexes with head forward as we have shown in a previous experiment that depressing the cerebellar vermis with cTBS can result in a modulation in the postural sway direction, such that it is no longer intra‐aural with the head facing over the shoulder (Lam et al., 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The medium latency muscle response to a vestibular perturbation is increased after depression of the cerebellar vermis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionGalvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) is able to evoke distinct responses in the muscles used for balance. These reflexes, termed the short (SL) and medium latency (ML) responses, can be altered by sensory input; decreasing in size when additional sensory cues are available. Although much is known about these responses, the origin and role of the responses are still not fully understood. It has been suggested that the cerebellum, a structure that is involved in postural control and sensory integration, may play a role in the modulation of these reflexes.MethodsThe cerebellar vermis was temporarily depressed using continuous theta burst stimulation and SL, ML and overall vestibular electromyographic and force plate shear response amplitudes were compared before and after cerebellar depression.ResultsThere were no changes in force plate shear amplitude and a non‐significant increase for the SL muscle response (p = .071), however, we did find significant increases in the ML and overall vestibular muscle response amplitudes after cerebellar depression (p = .026 and p = .016, respectively). No changes were evoked when a SHAM stimulus was used.DiscussionThese results suggest that the cerebellar vermis plays a role in the modulation of vestibular muscle reflex responses to GVS.

show abstract

Influence of head position and proprioceptive cues on short latency postural reflexes evoked by galvanic stimulation of the human labyrinth

Cited by 347 publications

References 16 publications

Multiple Reference Frames for Motion in the Primate Cerebellum

Multiple Reference Frames for Motion in the Primate Cerebellum

Human body‐segment tilts induced by galvanic stimulation: a vestibularly driven balance protection mechanism.

The medium latency muscle response to a vestibular perturbation is increased after depression of the cerebellar vermis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About