TY - JOUR
T1 - Differences Between Physical vs. Virtual Evoked Vestibular Responses
AU - Ashiri, Mehrangiz
AU - Lithgow, Brian
AU - Suleiman, Abdelbaset
AU - Blakley, Brian
AU - Mansouri, Behzad
AU - Moussavi, Zahra
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was partly supported by the Natural science and engineering research council (NSERC) of Canada.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Biomedical Engineering Society.
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - Electrovestibulography (EVestG), a technology purported to measure vestibular activity at the vestibular periphery, was used to compare the vestibular responses to two sensory inputs: (1) back-forward physical tilt (with eyes-open and eyes-closed) and (2) virtual reality replica of the back-forward tilt (eyes-open, physically static). Twenty-seven healthy participants (10 females) were tested. From each of the EVestG recordings, two feature curves: (1) average field potential (FP), and (2) distribution of time intervals between the detected FPs were extracted. For the eyes-closed physical tilt, except for the background segment, the FP response curve was generally wider compared to that evoked during the virtual replica tilt (p < 0.05). Moreover, the eyes-closed physical tilt produced longer time intervals between FP’s compared to the virtual stimulus. For this measure, for the background segment, the eyes closed and open physical tilt responses were significantly different (p < 0.05) in both ears (repeated measure experimental design). The results support: (1) both vestibular and visual inputs evoking a measurably different EVestG response, (2) the differences between physical and virtual vestibular responses are dependent on the eyes being either open or closed, and (3) for the stimuli used, the modulation of vestibular afferent activity was measurably smaller for virtual than physical stimulation.
AB - Electrovestibulography (EVestG), a technology purported to measure vestibular activity at the vestibular periphery, was used to compare the vestibular responses to two sensory inputs: (1) back-forward physical tilt (with eyes-open and eyes-closed) and (2) virtual reality replica of the back-forward tilt (eyes-open, physically static). Twenty-seven healthy participants (10 females) were tested. From each of the EVestG recordings, two feature curves: (1) average field potential (FP), and (2) distribution of time intervals between the detected FPs were extracted. For the eyes-closed physical tilt, except for the background segment, the FP response curve was generally wider compared to that evoked during the virtual replica tilt (p < 0.05). Moreover, the eyes-closed physical tilt produced longer time intervals between FP’s compared to the virtual stimulus. For this measure, for the background segment, the eyes closed and open physical tilt responses were significantly different (p < 0.05) in both ears (repeated measure experimental design). The results support: (1) both vestibular and visual inputs evoking a measurably different EVestG response, (2) the differences between physical and virtual vestibular responses are dependent on the eyes being either open or closed, and (3) for the stimuli used, the modulation of vestibular afferent activity was measurably smaller for virtual than physical stimulation.
KW - Afferent
KW - Electrovestibulography (EVestG)
KW - Virtual reality
KW - Visual
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85077570950
U2 - 10.1007/s10439-019-02446-3
DO - 10.1007/s10439-019-02446-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 31916127
AN - SCOPUS:85077570950
SN - 0090-6964
VL - 48
SP - 1241
EP - 1255
JO - Annals of Biomedical Engineering
JF - Annals of Biomedical Engineering
IS - 4
ER -