Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 May 23.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Biol. 2016 May 12;26(10):1359–1366. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.066

Figure 1. Comparison of Rotatory Chair— Kinetic—and Magnetic Vestibular Stimulation.

Figure 1

(A) Nystagmus response profile of a subject exposed to a rotation of constant acceleration (blue) and to MVS (red) of 300-s duration. The expected response of the cupula to MVS is a rise to a constant deflection (and a constant SPV), equivalent to the response to a rotation of constant acceleration. Nystagmus during the acceleration stimulus (orange demarcation) represents the perstimulatory response, that is, the response to a constant cupula deflection in both cases. Note that the nystagmus does not remain constant but decays toward a new, above zero, steady-state level. When the constant acceleration stimulus stops, the cupula returns to, but not beyond, its original position, and a post-stimulatory aftereffect emerges.

(B) Comparison of normalized responses to rotational and magnetic-field stimulation in six subjects showing the responses are largely comparable, though some subjects showed more adaptation with the chair stimulus, especially as reflected in the post-stimulation behavior. Responses are normalized to a maximum response of 100 for both rotational and magnetic-field stimulation.

Abbreviations are as follows: SPV, slow-phase velocity; CHAIR, rotatory chair (kinetic) stimulation; MVS, magnetic vestibular stimulation. See also Figures S1 and S2.