ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2024
Disrupted Rotational Perception During Simultaneous Stimulation of Rotation and Inertia.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revisiting central positional vertigo and nystagmus through the velocity-storage mechanism.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two vestibular signals, rotational and inertial cues, converge for the perception of complex motion. However, how vestibular perception is built on neuronal behaviors and decision-making processes, especially during the simultaneous presentation of rotational and inertial cues, has yet to be elucidated in humans. In this study, we analyzed the perceptual responses of 20 participants after pairwise rotational experiments, comprised of four control and four test sessions. In both control and test sessions, participants underwent clockwise and counterclockwise rotations in head-down and head-up positions. The difference between the control and test sessions was the head re-orientation relative to gravity after rotations, thereby providing only rotational cues in the control sessions and both rotational and inertial cues in the test sessions. The accuracy of perceptual responses was calculated by comparing the direction of rotational and inertial cues acquired from participants with that predicted by the velocity-storage model. The results showed that the accuracy of rotational perception ranged from 80 to 95% in the four control sessions but significantly decreased to 35 to 75% in the four test sessions. The accuracy of inertial perception in the test sessions ranged from 50 to 70%. The accuracy of rotational perception improved with repetitive exposure to the simultaneous presentation of both rotational and inertial cues, while the accuracy of inertial perception remained steady. The results suggested a significant interaction between rotational and inertial perception and implied that vestibular perception acquired in patients with vestibular disorders are potentially inaccurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38702560What 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.