Subjective visual vertical and visual dependency in patients with multiple sclerosis

Ulozienė, Ingrida; Totilienė, Milda; Balnytė, Renata; Kuzminienė, Alina; Kregždytė, Rima; Paulauskas, Andrius; Blažauskas, Tomas; Marozas, Vaidotas; Uloza, Virgilijus; Kaski, Diego

doi:10.1016/j.msard.2020.102255

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whilst having the potential to induce vection, dynamic SVV error rate does not differ across a short intertrial interval (<1 min) in controls, such that we did not observe learning or trial biases. The VIRVEST system has been previously validated in a healthy population and in patients with multiple sclerosis (Ulozienė et al, 2017(Ulozienė et al, , 2020. Three parameters were evaluated: static SVV, dynamic SVV, and VD.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impaired Subjective Visual Vertical and Increased Visual Dependence in Older Adults With Falls

Totilienė

Uloza

Lesauskaitė

et al. 2021

Front. Aging Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aging affects the vestibular system and may disturb the perception of verticality and lead to increased visual dependence (VD). Studies have identified that abnormal upright perception influences the risk of falling. The aim of our study was to evaluate subjective visual vertical (SVV) and VD using a mobile virtual reality-based system for SVV assessment (VIRVEST) in older adults with falls and evaluate its relationship with clinical balance assessment tools, dizziness, mental state, and depression level. This study included 37 adults >65 years who experienced falls and 40 non-faller age-matched controls. Three tests were performed using the VIRVEST system: a static SVV, dynamic SVV with clockwise and counter-clockwise background stimulus motion. VD was calculated as the mean of absolute values of the rod tilt from each trial of dynamic SVV minus the mean static SVV rod tilt. Older adults who experienced falls manifested significantly larger biases in static SVV (p = 0.012), dynamic SVV (p < 0.001), and VD (p = 0.014) than controls. The increase in static SVV (odds ratio = 1.365, p = 0.023), dynamic SVV (odds ratio = 1.623, p < 0.001) and VD (odds ratio = 1.460, p = 0.010) tilt by one degree significantly related to falls risk in the faller group. Fallers who had a high risk of falling according to the Tinetti test exhibited significantly higher tilts of dynamic SVV than those who had a low or medium risk (p = 0.037). In the faller group, the increase of the dynamic SVV tilt by one degree was significantly related to falls risk according to the Tinetti test (odds ratio = 1.356, p = 0.049). SVV errors, particularly with the dynamic SVV test (i.e., greater VD) were associated with an increased risk of falling in the faller group. The VIRVEST system may be applicable in clinical settings for SVV testing and predicting falls in older adults.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Visual dependence was calculated as the mean of the absolute values of the rod tilt from each trial of dynamic SVV minus the static SVV trials. Other studies also used a similar measure of VD with computerized (Cousins et al, 2014;Ulozienė et al, 2020) and noncomputerized versions (Roberts et al, 2016;Bednarczuk et al, 2020) of SVV.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impaired Subjective Visual Vertical and Increased Visual Dependence in Older Adults With Falls

Totilienė

Uloza

Lesauskaitė

et al. 2021

Front. Aging Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After competition of this condition, a third set of ten trials were then completed with the same spheres rotating at the same velocity but in the counterclockwise (CCW) direction. The use of rotating background on SVV has been widely used to study the effect of visual stimulation upon spatial orientation and verticality perception (Dichgans et al 1974 ; Cheung et al 1990 ; Cousins et al 2014 ; Roberts et al 2016 ; Bednarczuk et al 2020 ; Ulozienė et al 2020 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first phone ran the VR component of the software and acted as a display, residing within a VR headset (Samsung Oculus Gear, Samsung Electronics Group, South Korea) worn by the participant. The second phone ran the control component of the software and was used to setup and monitor the VR environment, and record the result (Ulozienė et al 2017(Ulozienė et al , 2020. The device was calibrated prior to starting data acquisition for each participant to ensure measurement of true earth vertical.…”

Section: Svv Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory contribution in visuospatial orientation: an interaction between neck and trunk proprioception

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A coherent perception of spatial orientation is key in maintaining postural control. To achieve this the brain must access sensory inputs encoding both the body and the head position and integrate them with incoming visual information. Here we isolated the contribution of proprioception to verticality perception and further investigated whether changing the body position without moving the head can modulate visual dependence—the extent to which an individual relies on visual cues for spatial orientation. Spatial orientation was measured in ten healthy individuals [6 female; 25–47 years (SD 7.8 years)] using a virtual reality based subjective visual vertical (SVV) task. Individuals aligned an arrow to their perceived gravitational vertical, initially against a static black background (10 trials), and then in other conditions with clockwise and counterclockwise background rotations (each 10 trials). In all conditions, subjects were seated first in the upright position, then with trunk tilted 20° to the right, followed by 20° to the left while the head was always aligned vertically. The SVV error was modulated by the trunk position, and it was greater when the trunk was tilted to the left compared to right or upright trunk positions (p < 0.001). Likewise, background rotation had an effect on SVV errors as these were greater with counterclockwise visual rotation compared to static background and clockwise roll motion (p < 0.001). Our results show that the interaction between neck and trunk proprioception can modulate how visual inputs affect spatial orientation.

show abstract

“…Different systems based on the SVV test have been developed to diagnose the misperception of VV from analogic and cheap tools as “the bucket test” 12 to novel and sophisticated virtual reality devices 14 . When vestibular inputs are altered, the CNS increases the participation of visual cues to maintain the balance in a phenomena termed field dependence 15 . The Rod and Frame Test, which consists in adjusting a luminous line that is projected inside a vertical frame (tilted or untilted respect to the Earth vertical) on a dark background, is a useful tool to assess the role of visual and somatosensory cues to estimate the VV 16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misperception of Visual Vertical in Peripheral Vestibular Disorders. A Systematic Review With Meta‐Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The main aim was to assess the misperception of visual verticality (VV) in patients with peripheral vestibular disorders (PVD) in comparison with healthy controls. As secondary objectives, we checked if vestibular, visual, and somatosensory postural pathways can be affected in patients with PVD as well as the characteristics of PVD that could influence on the VV perception. Methods A systematic review with meta‐analysis was carried out. The bibliographic search was performed in January, 2020 in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), CINAHL, SciELO. Two reviewers selected the studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS). The VV perception was assessed in two meta‐analysis according the used test: The Subjective Visual Vertical test (SVV) or the Rod and Frame Test (RFT) in comparison with healthy subjects. The Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) and its 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was used to estimate the pooled effect. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test and Trim and Fill Method. Results Thirty‐four studies were included reporting 3,524 participants. PVD patients showed a misperception of the VV with SVV (SMD = 1.510; 95%CI: 1.190–1.830) and the RFT (SMD = 0.816; 95% CI: 0.234–1.398) respect healthy controls. A subgroup of patients in the acute phase (SMD = 2.5; 95%CI: 2.022–2.978) and who underwent a vestibular surgery (SMD = 2.241; 95%CI: 1.471–3.011) had the greater misperception of VV. Conclusion Patients with PVD show an alteration in the perception of VV, being greater in the acute phase and after a vestibular surgery. Laryngoscope, 131:1110–1121, 2021

show abstract

Subjective visual vertical and visual dependency in patients with multiple sclerosis

Cited by 13 publications

References 36 publications

Impaired Subjective Visual Vertical and Increased Visual Dependence in Older Adults With Falls

Impaired Subjective Visual Vertical and Increased Visual Dependence in Older Adults With Falls

Multisensory contribution in visuospatial orientation: an interaction between neck and trunk proprioception

Misperception of Visual Vertical in Peripheral Vestibular Disorders. A Systematic Review With Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About