ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Modeling of magnetic vestibular stimulation experienced during high-field clinical MRI.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. 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.
- Study on the regulatory effect of magnetic vestibular stimulation on visually induced motion sickness.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Intelligent segmentation and measurement based on U-HRCT to explore the anatomical characteristics of the inner ear in unilateral Meniere's disease: a retrospective quantitative study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
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
backgroundHigh-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a powerful diagnostic tool but can induce unintended physiological effects, such as nystagmus and dizziness, potentially compromising the comfort and safety of individuals undergoing imaging. These effects likely result from the Lorentz force, which arises from the interaction between the MRI's static magnetic field and electrical currents in the inner ear. Yet, the Lorentz force hypothesis fails to explain observed eye movement patterns in healthy adults fully. This study explores these effects and tests whether the Lorentz force hypothesis adequately explains magnetic vestibular stimulation.
methodsWe developed a mathematical model integrating computational fluid dynamics, fluid-structure interaction solvers, and magnetohydrodynamic equations to simulate the biomechanical response of the cristae ampullares. Using high-resolution micro-CT data of the human membranous labyrinth, we ensured anatomical accuracy. Experimental validation involved measuring horizontal, vertical, and torsional slow-phase eye movements in healthy subjects exposed to varying magnetic field intensities and head positions.
resultsOur model accurately replicates observed nystagmus patterns, predicting slow-phase eye velocities that match experimental data. Results indicate that Lorentz force-induced stimulation of individual cupulae explains variability in eye movements across different magnetic field intensities and head orientations.
conclusionsThis study empirically supports the Lorentz force hypothesis as a valid explanation for magnetic vestibular stimulation, offering new insights into the effects of high-field MRI on the vestibular system. These findings provide a foundation for future research and improved clinical practices.
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.