↓ Skip to main content

Postural Control in Bilateral Vestibular Failure: Its Relation to Visual, Proprioceptive, Vestibular, and Cognitive Input

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Postural Control in Bilateral Vestibular Failure: Its Relation to Visual, Proprioceptive, Vestibular, and Cognitive Input
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00444
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Sprenger, Jann F. Wojak, Nico M. Jandl, Christoph Helmchen

Abstract

Patients with bilateral vestibular failure (BVF) suffer from postural and gait unsteadiness with an increased risk of falls. The aim of this study was to elucidate the differential role of otolith, semicircular canal (SSC), visual, proprioceptive, and cognitive influences on the postural stability of BVF patients. Center-of-pressure displacements were recorded by posturography under six conditions: target visibility; tonic head positions in the pitch plane; horizontal head shaking; sensory deprivation; dual task; and tandem stance. Between-group analysis revealed larger postural sway in BVF patients on eye closure; but with the eyes open, BVF did not differ from healthy controls (HCs). Head tilts and horizontal head shaking increased sway but did not differ between groups. In the dual task condition, BVF patients maintained posture indistinguishable from controls. On foam and tandem stance, postural sway was larger in BVF, even with the eyes open. The best predictor for the severity of bilateral vestibulopathy was standing on foam with eyes closed. Postural control of our BVF was indistinguishable from HCs once visual and proprioceptive feedback is provided. This distinguishes them from patients with vestibulo-cerebellar disorders or functional dizziness. It confirms previous reports and explains that postural unsteadiness of BVF patients can be missed easily if not examined by conditions of visual and/or proprioceptive deprivation. In fact, the best predictor for vestibular hypofunction (VOR gain) was examining patients standing on foam with the eyes closed. Postural sway in that condition increased with the severity of vestibular impairment but not with disease duration. In the absence of visual control, impaired otolith input destabilizes BVF with head retroflexion. Stimulating deficient SSC does not distinguish patients from controls possibly reflecting a shift of intersensory weighing toward proprioceptive-guided postural control. Accordingly, proprioceptive deprivation heavily destabilizes BVF, even when visual control is provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Neuroscience 10 9%
Engineering 4 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 31 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,994,946
of 24,880,704 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,985
of 13,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,822
of 321,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#45
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,880,704 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.