Application of intermittent galvanic vestibular stimulation reveals age-related constraints in the multisensory reweighting of posture

Eikema, Diderik Jan Anthony; Hatzitaki, Vassilia; Tzovaras, Dimitrios; Papaxanthis, Charalambos

doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2013.12.048

Cited by 42 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Still, given earlier studies that support the idea of older adults generally having trouble down-regulating non-relevant or misleading information (Berard et al, 2012;de Dieuleveult et al, 2017;Eikema et al, 2014;McGovern et al, 2014;Teasdale et al, 1991), we do not think that the effects of aging are specific to judging the direction of target motion.…”

Section: Effects Of Agementioning

confidence: 73%

“…Older adults appear to benefit more from multisensory enrichment in their environment than younger adults (Berard et al, 2012;de Dieuleveult et al, 2017;Deshpande and Zhang, 2014;Diederich et al, 2008;Townsend et al, 2006). However, there is also some evidence that older adults have trouble ignoring clearly irrelevant or unreliable sensory information; they use all environmental information even when it is disrupted or non-informative (distractors) (Berard et al, 2012;de Dieuleveult et al, 2017;Eikema et al, 2014;McGovern et al, 2014;Teasdale et al, 1991). In general, when performing various tasks, older adults tend to take more time, to be less accurate, and to be more variable than younger adults (de Dieuleveult et al, 2017;DeLoss et al, 2013;Guerreiro et al, 2014Guerreiro et al, , 2015Hugenschmidt et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aging and Sensitivity to Illusory Target Motion With or Without Secondary Tasks

Dieuleveult

Brouwer²,

Siemonsma

et al. 2018

Multisens Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Older individuals seem to find it more difficult to ignore inaccurate sensory cues than younger individuals. We examined whether this could be quantified using an interception task. Twenty healthy young adults (age 18-34) and twenty-four healthy older adults (age 60-82) were asked to tap on discs that were moving downwards on a screen with their finger. Moving the background to the left made the discs appear to move more to the right. Moving the background to the right made them appear to move more to the left. The discs disappeared before the finger reached the screen, so participants had to anticipate how the target would continue to move. We examined how misjudging the disc's motion when the background moves influenced tapping. Participants received veridical feedback about their performance, so their sensitivity to the illusory motion indicates to what extent they could ignore the task-irrelevant visual information. We expected older adults to be more sensitive to the illusion than younger adults. To investigate whether sensorimotor or cognitive load would increase this sensitivity, we also asked participants to do the task while standing on foam or counting tones. Background motion influenced older adults more than younger adults. The secondary tasks did not increase the background's influence. Older adults might be more sensitive to the moving background because they find it more difficult to ignore irrelevant sensory information in general, but they may rely more on vision because they have less reliable proprioceptive and vestibular information.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Agementioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aging and Sensitivity to Illusory Target Motion With or Without Secondary Tasks

Dieuleveult

Brouwer²,

Siemonsma

et al. 2018

Multisens Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First of all, visual input has been suppressed by some authors by asking participants to simply close their eyes (Stelmach et al, 1989; Teasdale et al, 1991; Cham et al, 2007; Bellomo et al, 2009). Other authors limited the visual input using active shutter googles (Allison et al, 2006; Eikema et al, 2014) or blurry vision (Deshpande and Patla, 2007). Others used optic flows to introduce a visual movement while participants were performing a task (Allison et al, 2006; Eikema et al, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other authors limited the visual input using active shutter googles (Allison et al, 2006; Eikema et al, 2014) or blurry vision (Deshpande and Patla, 2007). Others used optic flows to introduce a visual movement while participants were performing a task (Allison et al, 2006; Eikema et al, 2014). Finally, some authors introduced conflicting visual inputs that were not consistent with the information from the other modalities, such as a sway-referenced visual scene (Redfern et al, 2001, 2009; Allison et al, 2006; Cham et al, 2007) or an optic flow with the center of expansion gradually deviating to the left or to the right while subjects had to walk straight (Berard et al, 2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Somatosensory inputs have been perturbed, using devices such as a compliant surface (Deshpande and Zhang, 2014), bilateral Achilles tendon vibration (Eikema et al, 2014), and a movable touch plate where the fingertip is placed (Allison et al, 2006). Most authors used a movable platform or a moving room to produce a referenced sway to the floor (Stelmach et al, 1989; Redfern et al, 2001, 2009; Allison et al, 2006; Cham et al, 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review

Dieuleveult

Siemonsma

Erp

et al. 2017

Front. Aging Neurosci.

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisensory integration (MSI) is the integration by the brain of environmental information acquired through more than one sense. Accurate MSI has been shown to be a key component of successful aging and to be crucial for processes underlying activities of daily living (ADLs). Problems in MSI could prevent older adults (OA) to age in place and live independently. However, there is a need to know how to assess changes in MSI in individuals. This systematic review provides an overview of tests assessing the effect of age on MSI in the healthy elderly population (aged 60 years and older). A literature search was done in Scopus. Articles from the earliest records available to January 20, 2016, were eligible for inclusion if assessing effects of aging on MSI in the healthy elderly population compared to younger adults (YA). These articles were rated for risk of bias with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment. Out of 307 identified research articles, 49 articles were included for final review, describing 69 tests. The review indicated that OA maximize the use of multiple sources of information in comparison to YA (20 studies). In tasks that require more cognitive function, or when participants need to adapt rapidly to a situation, or when a dual task is added to the experiment, OA have problems selecting and integrating information properly as compared to YA (19 studies). Additionally, irrelevant or wrong information (i.e., distractors) has a greater impact on OA than on YA (21 studies). OA failing to weigh sensory information properly, has not been described in previous reviews. Anatomical changes (i.e., reduction of brain volume and differences of brain areas’ recruitment) and information processing changes (i.e., general cognitive slowing, inverse effectiveness, larger time window of integration, deficits in attentional control and increased noise at baseline) can only partly explain the differences between OA and YA regarding MSI. Since we have an interest in successful aging and early detection of MSI issues in the elderly population, the identified tests form a good starting point to develop a clinically useful toolkit to assess MSI in healthy OA.

show abstract