Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34456671›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2021

Similarities and Differences Between Vestibular and Cochlear Systems - A Review of Clinical and Physiological Evidence.

Ian S Curthoys, John Wally Grant, Christopher J Pastras, Laura Fröhlich, Daniel J Brown

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [An analyzation on the characterization of frequency tuning of vestibular evoked myogenic potential in patients with unilateral vestibular hypofunction].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ian S CurthoysVestibular Research Laboratory, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
John Wally GrantDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States.
Christopher J PastrasThe Menière's Research Laboratory, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Laura FröhlichDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Daniel J BrownSchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUCurtin University · AUMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DEVirginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evoked response to repeated brief stimuli, such as clicks or short tone bursts, is used for clinical evaluation of the function of both the auditory and vestibular systems. One auditory response is a neural potential - the Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) - recorded by surface electrodes on the head. The clinical analogue for testing the otolithic response to abrupt sounds and vibration is the myogenic potential recorded from tensed muscles - the vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP). VEMPs have provided clinicians with a long sought-after tool - a simple, clinically realistic indicator of the function of each of the 4 otolithic sensory regions. We review the basic neural evidence for VEMPs and discuss the similarities and differences between otolithic and cochlear receptors and afferents. VEMPs are probably initiated by sound or vibration selectively activating afferent neurons with irregular resting discharge originating from the unique type I receptors at a specialized region of the otolithic maculae (the striola). We review how changes in VEMP responses indicate the functional state of peripheral vestibular function and the likely transduction mechanisms allowing otolithic receptors and afferents to trigger such very short latency responses. In section "ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY" we show how cochlear and vestibular receptors and afferents have many similar electrophysiological characteristics [e.g., both generate microphonics, summating potentials, and compound action potentials (the vestibular evoked potential, VsEP)]. Recent electrophysiological evidence shows that the hydrodynamic changes in the labyrinth caused by increased fluid volume (endolymphatic hydrops), change the responses of utricular receptors and afferents in a way which mimics the changes in vestibular function attributed to endolymphatic hydrops in human patients. In section "MECHANICS OF OTOLITHS IN VEMPS TESTING" we show how the major VEMP results (latency and frequency response) follow from modeling the physical characteristics of the macula (dimensions, stiffness etc.). In particular, the structure and mechanical operation of the utricular macula explains the very fast response of the type I receptors and irregular afferents which is the very basis of VEMPs and these structural changes of the macula in Menière's Disease (MD) predict the upward shift of VEMP tuning in these patients.

Indexed as

labyrinthotolithsaccularsemicircular canalutricularvempvestibular

Identifiers

PMID34456671
PMCPMC8397526
OpenAlexW3188842097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.