ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2025
Optimising electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) for assessing vestibular function.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) exhibits similar diagnostic performance to caloric irrigation for assessing interaural vestibular asymmetry. To optimise EVS for clinical uses, we investigated the influence of EVS stimulus parameters upon absolute torsional eye response amplitude and asymmetry assessments. Methods: In young healthy adults (n = 72), monoaural sinusoidal EVS was delivered to each mastoid process for 40 s whilst ocular torsion was assessed. Ambient lights, electrode montage, and stimulus frequency were systematically manipulated. Results: Ambient lights (250 lx) attenuated torsional responses by 20 % compared to darkness. When the reference electrode was next to C7 (i.e., mastoid-C7 montage), responses to monoaural stimuli were 50 % those of binaural stimulation. Sinusoidal stimuli at 0.5 Hz evoked torsional responses 250 % larger than at 2 Hz but required 300 % more time to estimate asymmetry (12sec vs 4sec). Perceived discomfort was lower at 0.5 Hz than at 2 Hz. Pooled results (n = 53) suggest a normative asymmetry range of 0 ± 25 % for assessing pathological asymmetry. Conclusions: Darkness and lower stimulus frequencies optimise absolute torsional eye response amplitude. Higher stimulus frequencies accelerate asymmetry assessments. To activate a single vestibular end organ, a mastoid-C7 (or mastoid-acromioclavicular) montage should be used. Significance: These results extend the clinical potential of EVS for assessing vestibular function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.