English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background. The vestibular system is vital for gaze stability via the vestibulo-ocular reflex, which generates compensatory eye motion in the direction opposite to head motion. Consequently, individuals with peripheral vestibular loss demonstrate impaired gaze stability that reduces functional capacity and quality of life. To facilitate patients' compensatory strategies, two classes of gaze stabilization exercises are often prescribed: (i) transient (eg, ballistic) and (ii) continuous. However, the relative benefits of these two classes of exercises are not well understood. Objective. To quantify head motion kinematics in patients with vestibular loss while they performed both classes of exercises. Methods. Using inertial measurement units, head movements of 18 vestibular schwannoma patients were measured before and after surgical deafferentation and compared with age-matched controls. Results. We found that the head movement during both classes of exercises paralleled those of natural head movement recorded during daily activities. However, head movement patterns were more informative for continuous than transient exercises in distinguishing patients from healthy controls. Specifically, we observed coupling between kinematic measures in control subjects that was absent in patients for continuous but not transient head motion exercises. In addition, kinematic measures (eg, cycle duration) were predictive of standard clinical measures for continuous but not transient head motion exercises. Conclusions. Our data suggest that performing continuous head motion is a greater motor control challenge than transient head motion in patients with less reliable vestibular feedback during the sub-acute stage of recovery, which may also prove to be a reliable measure of progression in vestibular rehabilitation protocols.

Continuous Head Motion is a Greater Motor Control Challenge than Transient Head Motion in Patients with Loss of Vestibular Function