1971
DOI: 10.1016/0014-4886(71)90228-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The otolith organs and their influence on oculomotor movements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1973
1973
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Existing evidence suggests that responses to activation of a single focal region on a single macula (or any small bundle of axons within the utricular or saccular nerve) are relatively small compared to ampullary nerve responses and often disconjugate, with direction and speed that depend not only on which afferents are activated but also on the temporal dynamics of the stimulus, visual target distance and eccentricity, and the pattern of simultaneous activity in ampullary nerves (Fluur and Mellström 1970a, 1970b, 1971; Goto et al 2003, 2004; Curthoys 1987; Meng and Angelaki 2006). Absent clear guidance from the literature regarding the relationship between macular stimulation patterns and the 3D axis of aVOR/tVOR responses, we assumed that macula-mediated responses were negligible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Existing evidence suggests that responses to activation of a single focal region on a single macula (or any small bundle of axons within the utricular or saccular nerve) are relatively small compared to ampullary nerve responses and often disconjugate, with direction and speed that depend not only on which afferents are activated but also on the temporal dynamics of the stimulus, visual target distance and eccentricity, and the pattern of simultaneous activity in ampullary nerves (Fluur and Mellström 1970a, 1970b, 1971; Goto et al 2003, 2004; Curthoys 1987; Meng and Angelaki 2006). Absent clear guidance from the literature regarding the relationship between macular stimulation patterns and the 3D axis of aVOR/tVOR responses, we assumed that macula-mediated responses were negligible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dense packing of hair cells and afferents with widely varying directional sensitivities in the utricular and saccular maculae and their nerves makes the relationship between electrically-evoked macular nerve stimulation and aVOR/tVOR-mediated eye movements less predictable (Suzuki et al 1969a, 1969b; Fluur and Mellström 1970a, 1970b, 1971; Goto et al 2003, 2004; Curthoys 1987). Existing evidence suggests that eye movement responses to natural stimulation of macular nerves are modest compared to aVOR responses to SCC input during natural head rotation (Baarsma and Collewijn 1975); therefore, we neglected the effects of macular nerve activity when predicting 3D eye movement axes from the pattern of vestibular nerve activity reported by the model.…”
Section: Model Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Focal mechanical stimulation of one or more ampullary nerves causes binocular eye movements with little or no disconjugacy (e.g., during nystagmus due to benign paroxysmal positional vertigo or superior semicircular canal dehiscence in otherwise normal subjects [Cremer et al 2002]), so we would expect inadvertent electrical stimulation of non-target ampullary nerves to elicit aVOR responses that are conjugate regardless of how well they align with the head rotation axis. In contrast, existing evidence suggests that the eye movement responses to activation of a single region on a single macula (or other combinations of axons within the utricular and saccular nerves) are disconjugate (Suzuki et al 1969a, 1969b; Fluur and Mellström 1970a, 1970b, 1971; Goto et al 2003, 2004; Curthoys 1987). It seems reasonable to assume that the disconjugacy we observed between 3D rotation axes of the two eyes in each animal upon initial MVP activation represents an electrically-evoked translational VOR (tVOR) and/or ocular tilt reaction driven by inadvertent macular nerve stimulation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The contribution of sacculus versus utriculus to torsional eye movements recorded in human subjects on centrifuges was estimated roughly at a 1:3 ratio (De Graaf et al 1996). Although fewer in the number of relay neurons and not as strong in their synaptic drive, torsional eye movements could be elicited via polysynaptic pathways from both utriculus and sacculus (Curthoys 1987;Fluur and Mellstrom 1971;Isu et al 2000;Sasaki et al 1991;Uchino et al 1996).…”
Section: Compensatory Lvor Versus Orienting Ocular Responsesmentioning
confidence: 99%