Affiliations: Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, The Eye & Ear Institute Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Note: [1] Presented at the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, USA, February 1995.
Note: [*] Reprint address: Dr. Joseph M. Furman, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, The Eye & Ear Institute Building, 203 Lothrop Street, Suite 500, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to further define the eye movement response to combined visual and vestibular stimulation, especially during linear acceleration. Subjects included 15 asymptomatic healthy individuals (8 females and 7 males) between the ages of 20 and 31 years. Vestibular stimulation consisted of earth-vertical axis rotation and off-vertical axis rotation (OVAR). Visual stimuli consisted of projected vertical stripes that were rotated for optokinetic trials and stationary for visual augmentation trials. A small laser target (0.5 mW, 0.50° arc) that rotated with the subject was used for fixation trials. Eye movements were measured with electro-oculography. Results showed that visual-vestibular interaction during sinusoidal rotation was not affected by a 15° off-vertical tilt. Constant velocity OVAR induced a continuous nystagmus whose slow component velocity contained a nonzero baseline, that is, a bias, and a periodic fluctuation at the rotation frequency, that is, a modulation component. The modulation component during visual fixation was reduced as compared with that seen during rotation in the dark, but was not absent. Constant velocity OVAR in the presence of earth-fixed stripes induced a consistent sinusoidal modulation. Our results suggest that visual-vestibular interaction for otolith stimulation differs from visual-vestibular interaction for semicircular canal stimulation. The modulation component of the response to OVAR appears to be modified by visual stimulation to a lesser extent than other vestibular-induced eye movements and thus may reflect a more “direct” vestibulo-ocular response. The bias component of the response to OVAR can be substantially influenced by vision and thus may depend upon more “indirect” pathways.
