Can a unilateral loss of otolithic function be clinically detected by assessment of the subjective visual vertical?

Böhmer, Andreas; Mast, Fred W.; Jarchow, Thomas

doi:10.1016/0361-9230(96)00137-2

Cited by 33 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These errors were smaller than those reported in previous studies using mechanical systems which range from 6° [9,11] to 11° [8,10]. This could be a result of the greater accuracy with which the error is measured using the CRAF compared to the other systems.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…The results using the dots were comparable with control subjects in rod only studies (no frame) with a difference of less than 1° in the normal range (mean ± 2SD) of errors [8,10,14,18]. While the two tests are not necessarily equivalent, Bagust [17] found no significant difference between the errors generated under no frame and untilted frame conditions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…The test is simple but a number of different systems have been used. In some studies a light emitting rod [2,3,8,9], or a rod and a frame [10-15] have been adjusted using a mechanical device, in others they have been projected onto a screen [16]. In the majority of cases a completely dark room and specialised laboratory facilities are required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

From line to dots: an improved computerised rod and frame system for testing subjective visual vertical and horizontal

Docherty

Bagust

2010

BMC Research Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPerception of subjective visual vertical (SVV) and horizontal (SVH) has traditionally been measured by rotating a mechanical rod either with or without a frame present. The computerised rod and frame (CRAF) system has previously only been used to measure SVV. We have expanded the use of this system by testing its feasibility to measure SVH. This was done by comparing two groups of subjects (n = 103) randomly assigned to be tested for SVV or SVH.FindingsPreliminary results showed a higher than expected percentage of individuals with SVH errors < 0.5°. This was attributed to additional visual cues provided by the changing appearance of the rod as it approached the horizontal. A solution to this problem was sought by replacing the rod by two dots to mark its ends. In a second investigation 30 subjects were tested using both the "rod as line" and "rod as dots" presentation. Bland and Altman analysis showed no difference between the rod and dots presentations in the measurement of SVV, but confirmed a fixed error of -0.93° between rods and dots for SVH. Changing the rod from a line to dots in the computer system resulted in errors for both SVV and SVH that were comparable to previous studies using manual systems.ConclusionsThe computerized rod and frame system may be improved by replacement of the line with two dots. This reduces clues provided to the subject by the appearance of the rod on the screen.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From line to dots: an improved computerised rod and frame system for testing subjective visual vertical and horizontal

Docherty

Bagust

2010

BMC Research Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, if a unilateral vestibular lesion deviates the eyes in cyclo-torsional tilt to the lesion side the visual vertical is set according to the ocular tilt and thus in turns becomes an indicator of the laterality of vestibular loss by virtue of its tilt towards the side of lesion. This effect is relatively acute and the visual vertical may become apparently normal or near normal within 6 months to a year [30][31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Ocular Cyclo-torsion and The Visual Vertical In Unilateral Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathophysiology and Clinical Testing of Otolith Dysfunction

Gresty

Lempert²

2000

Otolith Function and Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is based on a talk on the pathophysiology of the otolith organs which was given in Paris in the early days of this third millennium. The purpose was to attempt a didactic statement about our understanding of the otolith which could be of value to physicians and surgeons dealing with patients who present with vestibular disease. As such it would be a cultural affront and an expression of historical ignorance not to commence with a reference to the views of FH Quix who gave his lectures 'Les Méthodes d'Examen de L'Organe Vestibulaire' in that same city more than 70 years ago [1]. Figure 1 is reproduced from lecture notes and shows Professor Quix demonstrating the orientations of the utricles and saccules using his hands to indicate the planes of the maculae. Figure 2 reproduces Quix's illustration of the changes of posture, including eye movements, which follow asymmetrical tonus between the right and left vestibular organs. Quix's experimental method for producing tonus in normal man was by galvanic stimulation across the mastoids. The figures show that in the case of canal asymmetry there is principally a turn of all parts of the body in the frontal and horizontal planes. In the case of otolithic asymmetry the major effect is the tilt of the body towards the hypotonic side; notably involving also a tonic tilt in cyclotorsion of the eyes to this side. Within these general schemata Quix also made a distinction between the functional responses of the utricles and succules which, I believe, even today could provoke thought for experimentation.What we have learnt since Quix? Certainly we have learnt much about the detailed physiology of these organs and their central connections, but

show abstract

“…Whereas fMRI requires more restrictive positions for participants to be scanned, fNIRS allows normal upright postures with negligible physical/motor constraints. Given previous evidence documenting close relations between body posture and vertical perception (Bohmer et al 1996;Riccio et al 1992), it would seem particularly desirable to repeat the matching version of the FLT procedure (which involves the size judgment of vertical lines) with fNIRS. One weakness of fNIRS is its relatively crude spatial resolution of 2-3 cm and its limitation to cortical measurements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Culturally non-preferred cognitive tasks require compensatory attention: a functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) investigation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can a unilateral loss of otolithic function be clinically detected by assessment of the subjective visual vertical?

Cited by 33 publications

References 6 publications

From line to dots: an improved computerised rod and frame system for testing subjective visual vertical and horizontal

From line to dots: an improved computerised rod and frame system for testing subjective visual vertical and horizontal

Pathophysiology and Clinical Testing of Otolith Dysfunction

Culturally non-preferred cognitive tasks require compensatory attention: a functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About