ReviewAudiology research2024
Focused Update on Clinical Testing of Otolith Organs.
Review in Audiology research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unravelling the Impact of Microgravity on Calcium Ion Signaling and Sensorium in Spaceflight.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Rehabilitative monitoring of utricular dysfunction: VOCR findings before and after Epley maneuver in BPPV patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Bayesian estimation of sensory priors in human spatial orientation.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Assessment of the Inter-Frequency Amplitude Ratio (1000/500 Hz) in cVEMP and oVEMP for the Diagnosis of Ménière's Disease.Audiology research · 2024Article
- Assessing Otolith-Ocular Function With Video-Ocular Counter-Roll: Optimal Tilt Angles and Impact of Visual Inputs.Ear and hearingArticle
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
Sensing gravity through the otolith receptors is crucial for bipedal stability and gait. The overall contribution of the otolith organs to eye movements, postural control, and perceptual functions is the basis for clinical testing of otolith function. With such a wide range of contributions, it is important to recognize that the functional outcomes of these tests may vary depending on the specific method employed to stimulate the hair cells. In this article, we review common methods used for clinical evaluation of otolith function and discuss how different aspects of physiology may affect the functional measurements in these tests. We compare the properties and performance of various clinical tests with an emphasis on the newly developed video ocular counter roll (vOCR), measurement of ocular torsion on fundus photography, and subjective visual vertical or horizontal (SVV/SVH) testing.
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.