Trial reportJournal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation2014
Amplitude and frequency prediction in the translational vestibulo-ocular reflex.
Trial report in Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Somatosensory Influence on Platform-Induced Translational Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex in Vertical Direction in Humans.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Perspectives on Aging Vestibular Function.Frontiers in neurology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of this study was to assess the effect of amplitude and frequency predictability on the performance of the translational vestibulo-ocular reflex (tVOR). Eye movements were recorded in 5 subjects during continuous vertical translation that consisted of a series of segments with: 1) 3 amplitudes at constant frequency (2 Hz) or 2) 3 different frequencies (1.6, 2, 2.5 Hz). Stimulus changes were presented in a pseudo-random order. We found that there was little change in the tVOR immediately after an unexpected stimulus change, as if eye velocity were being driven more by an expectation based on previous steady-state motion than by current head translation. For amplitude transitions, only about 30% of the eventual response change was seen in the first half cycle. Similarly, a sudden change in translation frequency did not appear in eye velocity for 70 ms, compared to a 8 ms lag during similar yaw rotation. Finally, after a sudden large decrease in frequency, the eyes continued to track at the original higher frequency, resulting initially in an anti-compensatory tVOR acceleration. Our results elucidate further the complexity of the tVOR and show that motion prediction based on prior experience plays an important role in its response.
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.