Subjective Visual Vertical in Idiopathic Bilateral Vestibular Hypofunction: Enhanced Role of Vision, Neck, and Body Proprioception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to study the participation of proprioceptive and visual inputs in subjective visual vertical (SVV) in bilateral vestibular hypofunction and in normal subjects. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case-control study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SVV (six replicates) was measured on a tiltable rehabilitation seat in 26 adult patients with idiopathic bilateral vestibular hypofunction (IBVH) and 33 adult controls. Subjects were asked to place vertically a 45 degrees-tilted red line on a screen (three replicates to left and three to right alternatively) using a remote control in total darkness and in seven body positions: vertical, head, and body left- and right-tilts to 12 and 24 degrees, and then body left- and right-tilt to 24 degrees with the head upright. RESULTS: In the vertical position, SVV did not differ between IBVH and controls. Patients with IBVH were more sensitive to body tilt than controls (SVV: -8.1 ± 4.66 degrees for IBVH versus -0.2 ± 3.23 for control at 24 degrees body and head left-tilt, p < 0.0001, unpaired t test). The visual attraction effect defined by a deviation of the SVV to the side of the initial line presentation appeared to be higher in the IBVH than in controls suggesting higher visual dependence in IBVH. Placing the head upright while the body was still tilted significantly reduced this difference. Similar results were observed for the right-tilts. CONCLUSION: Not only otolithic function but also visual plus body and neck proprioceptive entries participate in SVV. The influence of vision and proprioception appears to be enhanced in case of IBVH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".