ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2020
Dominant parameter of galvanic vestibular stimulation for the non-associative learning processes.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2020. 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.
- Neural Interruption by Unilateral Labyrinthectomy Biases the Directional Preference of Otolith-Related Vestibular Neurons.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Repeated Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation Modified the Neuronal Potential in the Vestibular Nucleus.Neural plasticity · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrical stimulus is one of the common stimulating methods, and Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) is the oldest form as an electrical stimulation. Nevertheless, GVS is still considered as a secondary stimulating tool for the medical purposes. Even though some unarguable findings have made using GVS, its use has been limited because of its ambiguity as an input source. For better understanding, many previous studies mainly focused on its functional effects, like the ocular reflexes. However, its fundamental effects on the neural activities are still elusive, such as the dominant influences by different parameters of GVS. Here we compared the effects on the neuronal responses by applying two different parameters, strength and rate, of GVS. To assess the dominance on the neuronal responses to these parameters, we designed three independent stimuli. Those stimuli were multiply applied to obtain the responding slopes based on the mechanism of non-associative learning processes, and the effects on the neurons were calculated as an inner angle between two responding slopes. Out of 23 neurons, 15 (65.2%) units were affected more by the strength with a statistical significance (p = 0.047). The ranges of the inner angles also implied the strength (- 3.354°~2.063°) mainly modulated by the neuronal responses comparing with those by the rate (- 2.001°~1.975°). The dominance of the parameters was closely related with the neuronal sensitivity to stimulation (SE) (p = 0.018), while there were few relations with the neuronal regularity, directional preference (DP), and the physiological response (PR) (p > 0.059). Thus, the neural information related with the dominance was delivered by the irregular neurons, and these types of neurons should be the targets for the stimulation. Graphical abstract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31953797What 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.