Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41699242›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2026

The effect of visual scene on VEMP responses.

Şeyma Tuğba Öztürk, Sema Satıcı, Cem Yeral, Zahra Polat, Oğuz Yılmaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Şeyma Tuğba ÖztürkDepartment of Audiology, College of Health and Science, Istanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey. stozturk@medipol.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3619-0139
Sema SatıcıDepartment of Audiology, Hamidiye Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4974-5305
Cem YeralDepartment of Audiology, Faculty of Health and Science, Istanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2885-1483
Zahra PolatDepartment of Audiology, Hamidiye Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8384-4302
Oğuz YılmazDepartment of Audiology, Faculty of Health and Science, İzmir Bakırçay University, İzmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1884-0246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine how visual motion direction and the engagement of central versus peripheral visual fields modulate cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP). We investigated whether optokinetic stimulation and smooth pursuit, delivered centrally or peripherally, alter cVEMP latency and amplitude.

methodsForty-five healthy adults completed cVEMP testing across seven visual conditions: baseline (fixed gaze) and various optokinetic stimulation directions and smooth pursuit tasks. These stimuli were delivered using either a light bar (central vision, n=13) or an expanded visual surround (peripheral vision, n=32). Primary outcomes were P13 and N23 latencies and peak-to-peak amplitudes, with within-subject comparisons assessing deviations from baseline.

resultsCentral visual stimulation via the light bar produced no significant changes in cVEMP latencies or amplitudes relative to baseline (p > 0.008). In contrast, peripheral stimulation yielded significant latency prolongations, most prominently for N23 during vertical and horizontal optokinetic motion. P13 effects were less pronounced and inconsistent. Amplitudes did not show systematic changes across any condition. The divergent behaviour of P13 and N23 indicates differential susceptibility of early versus later cVEMP components to visual and cognitive influences.

conclusionPeripheral visual motion exerts a more substantial influence on vestibulo-collic pathways than central foveal input, primarily by delaying cVEMP latencies without enhancing amplitudes. This pattern contrasts with prior vection-linked reports of latency reductions and amplitude increases, suggesting distinct neural processing for vection versus purely visual motion cues. These findings highlight the potential to leverage peripheral motion to modulate otolith reflex timing in vestibular rehabilitation, warranting confirmation in patient cohorts and with explicit vection quantification

Indexed as

Pursuit, SmoothVestibular Evoked Myogenic PotentialsVisual FieldsAdultFemaleHumansMaleNystagmus, OptokineticPhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung AdultOtolithic membranePostural balanceVestibular evoked myogenic potentialsVisual perceptionVisual-vestibular interaction

Identifiers

PMID41699242
PMCPMC13153002

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.