Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24838552›Full record

ReviewExperimental brain research2014

Brainstem processing of vestibular sensory exafference: implications for motion sickness etiology.

Charles M Oman, Kathleen E Cullen

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental brain research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Virtual reality stimulation modulates saccular activity and vestibular system responses.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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The gut feeling in motion sickness.Communications biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Charles M OmanMan Vehicle Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 37-219, MIT 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA, coman@mit.edu.
Kathleen E Cullen
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · USMcGill University · CA

Funding

The Physiology of Vestibular CompensationR01DC002390 · NIDCD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Kathleen E Cullen · 1995 to 2026
$10.7M
CIHRNIDCD NIH HHS DC002390NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC002390
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The origin of the internal "sensory conflict" stimulus causing motion sickness has been debated for more than four decades. Recent studies show a subclass of neurons in the vestibular nuclei and deep cerebellar nuclei that respond preferentially to passive head movements. During active movement, the semicircular canal and otolith input ("reafference") to these neurons are canceled by a mechanism comparing the expected consequences of self-generated movement (estimated with an internal model-presumably located in the cerebellum) with the actual sensory feedback. The un-canceled component ("exafference") resulting from passive movement normally helps compensate for unexpected postural disturbances. Notably, the existence of such vestibular "sensory conflict" neurons had been postulated as early as 1982, but their existence and putative role in posture control and motion sickness have been long debated. Here, we review the development of "sensory conflict" theories in relation to recent evidence for brainstem and cerebellar reafference cancelation, and identify some open research questions. We propose that conditions producing persistent activity of these neurons, or their targets, stimulate nearby brainstem emetic centers-via an as yet unidentified mechanism. We discuss how such a mechanism is consistent with the notable difference in motion sickness susceptibility of drivers as opposed to passengers, human immunity to normal self-generated movement and why head restraint or lying horizontal confers relative immunity. Finally, we propose that fuller characterization of these mechanisms and their potential role in motion sickness could lead to more effective, scientifically based prevention and treatment for motion sickness.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrain StemFeedback, SensoryHumansModels, BiologicalMotion SicknessNeurons, AfferentProprioceptionVestibule, Labyrinth

Identifiers

PMID24838552
PMCPMC4130651
OpenAlexW2115805573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.