Unilateral or bilateral vestibular hypofunction presents most commonly with symptoms of dizziness or postural imbalance and affects a large population. However, it is often missed because no quantitative testing of vestibular function is performed, or misdiagnosed due to a lack of standardization of vestibular testing. Therefore, this article reviews the current status of the most frequently used vestibular tests for canal and otolith function. This information can also be used to reach a consensus about the systematic diagnosis of vestibular hypofunction.

ObjectivePatients with bilateral vestibulopathy (BV) can still have residual “natural” function. This might interact with “artificial” vestibular implant input (VI-input). When fluctuating, it could lead to vertigo attacks. Main objective was to investigate how “artificial” VI-input is integrated with residual “natural” input by the central vestibular system. This, to explore (1) whether misalignment in the response of “artificial” VI-input is sufficiently counteracted by well-aligned residual “natural” input and (2) whether “artificial” VI-input is able to influence and counteract the response to residual “natural” input, to show feasibility of a “vestibular pacemaker.”Materials and methodsFive vestibular electrodes in four BV patients implanted with a VI were available. This involved electrodes with a predominantly horizontal response and electrodes with a predominantly vertical response. Responses to predominantly horizontal residual “natural” input and predominantly horizontal and vertical “artificial” VI-input were separately measured first. Then, inputs were combined in conditions where both would hypothetically collaborate or counteract. In each condition, subjects were subjected to 60 cycles of sinusoidal stimulation presented at 1 Hz. Gain, asymmetry, phase and angle of eye responses were calculated. Signal averaging was performed.ResultsCombining residual “natural” input and “artificial” VI-input resulted in an interaction in which characteristics of the resulting eye movement responses could significantly differ from those observed when responses were measured for each input separately (p < 0.0013). In the total eye response, inputs with a stronger vector magnitude seemed to have stronger weights than inputs with a lower vector magnitude, in a non-linear combination. Misalignment in the response of “artificial” VI-input was not sufficiently counteracted by well-aligned residual “natural” input. “Artificial” VI-input was able to significantly influence and counteract the response to residual “natural” input.ConclusionIn the acute phase of VI-activation, residual “natural” input and “artificial” VI-input interact to generate eye movement responses in a non-linear fashion. This implies that different stimulation paradigms and more complex signal processing strategies will be required unless the brain is able to optimally combine both sources of information after adaptation during chronic use. Next to this, these findings could pave the way for using the VI as “vestibular pacemaker.”

Introduction: The vestibular implant could become a clinically useful device in the near future. This study investigated the feasibility of restoring the high-frequency dynamic visual acuity (DVA) with a vestibular implant, using the functional Head Impulse Test (fHIT). Methods: A 72-year-old female, with bilateral vestibulopathy and fitted with a modified cochlear implant incorporating three vestibular electrodes (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria), was available for this study. Electrical stimulation was delivered with the electrode close to the lateral ampullary nerve in the left ear. The high-frequency DVA in the horizontal plane was tested with the fHIT. After training, the patient underwent six trials of fHIT, each with a different setting of the vestibular implant: (1) System OFF before stimulation; (2) System ON, baseline stimulation; (3) System ON, reversed stimulation; (4) System ON, positive stimulation; (5) System OFF, without delay after stimulation offset; and (6) System OFF, 25 min delay after stimulation offset. The percentage of correct fHIT scores for right and left head impulses were compared between trials. Results: Vestibular implant stimulation improved the high-frequency DVA compared to no stimulation. This improvement was significant for “System ON, baseline stimulation” (p = 0.02) and “System ON, positive stimulation” (p < 0.001). fHIT scores changed from 19 to 44% (no stimulation) to maximum 75–94% (System ON, positive stimulation). Conclusion: The vestibular implant seems capable of improving the high-frequency DVA. This functional benefit of the vestibular implant illustrates again the feasibility of this device for clinical use in the near future.