Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39981130›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2025

A review of parameter settings for galvanic vestibular stimulation in clinical applications.

Yishai Valter, Linda Vataksi, Aaron R Allred, Jeffrey R Hebert, Tad T Brunyé, Torin K Clark, Jorge Serrador, Abhishek Datta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

8 authors.

Yishai ValterResearch and Development Soterix Medical Inc., Woodbridge, NJ, United States.
Linda VataksiResearch and Development Soterix Medical Inc., Woodbridge, NJ, United States.
Aaron R AllredU. S. Army DEVCOM Soldier Center, Natick, MA, United States.
Jeffrey R HebertMarcus Institute for the Brain Health, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States.
Tad T BrunyéDepartment of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, United States.
Torin K ClarkU. S. Army DEVCOM Soldier Center, Natick, MA, United States.
Jorge SerradorMARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abhishek DattaResearch and Development Soterix Medical Inc., Woodbridge, NJ, United States.

Funding

NIDA NIH HHS 75N95020C00024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS) is a method of manipulating the vestibular system through non-invasive electrical current. Depending on how GVS is applied, it produces specific sensations related to vestibular mediated central pathways. The method has been tested for decades for both medical and non-medical applications and has demonstrated promise in treating a variety of disorders including peripheral vestibular conditions, central vestibular pathology due to neurodegenerative diseases, and post-stroke motor rehabilitation. As GVS continues to grow in popularity and applications, the field lacks clarity on appropriate stimulation parameters, despite their importance for safe and efficacious neuromodulation. This study aims to review the parameters used in various treatment applications while also providing a concise overview of the mechanisms underlying GVS thereby offering essential context and justification for the chosen parameters. We performed a literature search on the PubMed and Embase databases for clinical trials including the term "galvanic vestibular stimulation." After removing duplicates, secondary analyses, and studies that did not use GVS for therapeutic purposes, we were left with 53 independent studies. We extracted the stimulation parameters used in each study and report them here. The results of this review suggest that while some stimulation parameters are relatively standardized for specific treatment indications, others lack universally accepted guidelines as the field of GVS continues to evolve. Based on our findings, we recommend that future GVS research include at least one sham condition, the use of individualized current intensity, and the comparison of multiple GVS parameters within the same trial.

Indexed as

balance disordergalvanic vestibular stimulationGVSmotion sicknessparameters optimizationpost-strokespatial orientationvestibular system

Identifiers

PMID39981130
PMCPMC11841469

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.