ArticlePloS one2017
Roll vection in migraine and controls using inertial nulling and certainty estimate techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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.
- Vestibular perceptual testing from lab to clinic: a review.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- A case-control study of visually evoked postural responses in childhood with primary headaches.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Vection is an illusory perception of self-motion that occurs when a visual motion is presented in the majority of the visual field. We used certainty estimate (CE) and inertial nulling (IN) techniques to study the effect of visual stimuli on roll perception in 10 migraine and 9 control subjects. A visual roll stimulus was presented for 1 to 8s. For the IN method, an inertial stimulus was delivered during the final 1s of the visual stimulus during which subjects judged the direction of perceived motion. The inertial motion was varied to find the point of subjective equality (PSE) at which both responses were equally likely to be reported. For the CE trials, the same durations of visual motion were used but without inertial motion and subjects rated their certainty of motion on a scale of 0-100. The overall difference in PSE between 1s and 8s subjects is significant (p = 0.03). Migraineurs had a ten fold larger effect in IN studies in the 8s than 1s (p = 0.01), but controls did not have a significant difference (p = 0.72). Unlike the control population, in migraineurs the perception of roll increased significantly with the duration of the visual stimulus. There was a large variation between subjects with both the CE and IN measures. The CE measure was poorly correlated with IN measures but demonstrated a similar trend with larger variation between subjects.
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.