In vivo and dosimetric investigation on electrical vestibular stimulation with frequency- and amplitude-modulated currents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . Normal function of the vestibular system can be disturbed using a noninvasive technique called electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS), which alters a person’s sense of balance and causes false sensations of movement. EVS has been widely used to study the function of the vestibular system, and it has recently gained interest as a therapeutic tool to improve postural stability and help those suffering from vestibular dysfunction. Yet, understanding of how EVS stimulates the vestibular system, the current intensity needed to produce an effect and the frequencies at which it occurs have remained unclear. Approach . The effect of EVS on postural sway was examined in five participants using sinusoidal alternating current with time-varying amplitude from 0 to 1.5 mA and frequency from 0.1 to 10 Hz for three electrode configurations. Dosimetry of the current flow inside the head was conducted using anatomically realistic computational models created individually for each subject based on magnetic resonance imaging data. An estimate for the minimal field strength capable of affecting the vestibular system was calculated with the finite element method. Main results . Bipolar EVS at frequencies up to 10 Hz caused harmonic full-body swaying, and the frequency of the sway was the same as that of the stimulation current. The size of the sway was amplified by increasing the current intensity. Dosimetry modeling indicated that, for 0.2 mA current, the average electric field strength in the vestibular system was approximately 10–30 mV m −1 , depending on the electrode montage. The size of the measured postural sway was proportional to the montage-specific electric field strength in the vestibular system. Significance . The results provide insight to EVS’s working mechanisms and improve its potential as a tool to study the sense of balance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".