ArticleJournal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation2012
Visual-vestibular stimulation influences spatial and non-spatial cognitive processing.
Article in Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- From balance to perception: vestibular-cognitive integration predicts signal discrimination in a Multirule Visual Monitoring Task.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Flying enhances viewing from above bias on ambiguous visual stimuli.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Gradient impact of cognitive decline in unilateral vestibular hypofunction after rehabilitation: preliminary findings.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2018Article
- Embodied perspective-taking indicated by selective disruption from aberrant self motion.Psychological research · 2017Article
- Effect of vestibular stimulation on auditory and visual reaction time in relation to stress.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of visual-vestibular stimulation on performance of an auditory information processing task in young and older adults. Performance on a spatial choice reaction time task was compared to performance on a non-spatial choice reaction time task. The tasks were performed during simultaneous rotational and moving visual stimulation. The non-spatial task was an auditory frequency discrimination task while the spatial task was a right-left lateralization task. Visual and vestibular conditions consisted of a non-movement baseline, sinusoidal earth-vertical axis rotation (EVAR) in darkness, off-vertical axis rotation (OVAR) in darkness at a constant velocity, OVAR in darkness with a sinusoidal profile, EVAR with a lighted visual surround, constant velocity optokinetic stimulation, and sinusoidal optokinetic stimulation. Baseline reaction times were subtracted from reaction times during each stimulus condition to yield "task cost", which was analyzed statistically. Subjects were healthy young (n=20; 24 ± 2.7 yrs; 10F) and older (n=29; 73 ± 6.0 yrs; 18F) adults. Results indicated that task cost was affected by the visual-vestibular condition and a task x condition interaction. There was no main effect of task or age group and no significant interaction with age. Otolithic stimulation and visual stimulation were associated with greater task cost compared to semicircular canal stimulation. Combining semicircular canal with otolithic or visual stimulation had no additional effect beyond otolithic or visual stimulation alone. This pattern of task cost being larger for otolith or visual vs. semicircular canal stimulation was found for both the spatial and non-spatial tasks. The significant interaction between condition and task type revealed that the task cost for the spatial task was larger than the task cost for the non-spatial task during visual conditions but not during non-visual conditions although the visual and non-visual conditions were not entirely comparable. This study suggests that interference of vestibular stimulation with cognitive processing is especially prominent for otolithic and visual stimulation although the strength of the various visual-vestibular stimuli may not have been uniform. Also, spatial tasks are more affected than non-spatial tasks during visual stimulation and interference between vestibular stimulation and cognitive processing is not age dependent for these relatively easy tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.