↓ Skip to main content

Otolithic Receptor Mechanisms for Vestibular-Evoked Myogenic Potentials: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Otolithic Receptor Mechanisms for Vestibular-Evoked Myogenic Potentials: A Review
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00366
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian S. Curthoys, J. Wally Grant, Ann M. Burgess, Chris J. Pastras, Daniel J. Brown, Leonardo Manzari

Abstract

Air-conducted sound and bone-conduced vibration activate otolithic receptors and afferent neurons in both the utricular and saccular maculae, and trigger small electromyographic (EMG) responses [called vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs)] in various muscle groups throughout the body. The use of these VEMPs for clinical assessment of human otolithic function is built on the following logical steps: (1) that high-frequency sound and vibration at clinically effective stimulus levels activate otolithic receptors and afferents, rather than semicircular canal afferents, (2) that there is differential anatomical projection of otolith afferents to eye muscles and neck muscles, and (3) that isolated stimulation of the utricular macula induces short latency responses in eye muscles, and that isolated stimulation of the saccular macula induces short latency responses in neck motoneurons. Evidence supports these logical steps, and so VEMPs are increasingly being used for clinical assessment of otolith function, even differential evaluation of utricular and saccular function. The proposal, originally put forward by Curthoys in 2010, is now accepted: that the ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential reflects predominantly contralateral utricular function and the cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential reflects predominantly ipsilateral saccular function. So VEMPs can provide differential tests of utricular and saccular function, not because of stimulus selectivity for either of the two maculae, but by measuring responses which are predominantly determined by the differential neural projection of utricular as opposed to saccular neural information to various muscle groups. The major question which this review addresses is how the otolithic sensory system, with such a high density otoconial layer, can be activated by individual cycles of sound and vibration and show such tight locking of the timing of action potentials of single primary otolithic afferents to a particular phase angle of the stimulus cycle even at frequencies far above 1,000 Hz. The new explanation is that it is due to the otoliths acting as seismometers at high frequencies and accelerometers at low frequencies. VEMPs are an otolith-dominated response, but in a particular clinical condition, semicircular canal dehiscence, semicircular canal receptors are also activated by sound and vibration, and act to enhance the otolith-dominated VEMP responses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 34%
Neuroscience 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Engineering 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 25 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,803,832
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,299
of 11,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,352
of 330,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#88
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 330,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.