Scoping out noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation: a review of the parameters used to improve postural control

Comparison Between Effects of Galvanic and Vibration-Based Vestibular Stimulation on Postural Control and Gait Performance in Healthy Participants: A Systematic Review of Cross-Sectional Studies

Electricity and vibration were two commonly used physical agents to provide vestibular stimulation in previous studies. This study aimed to systematically review the effects of galvanic (GVS) and vibration-based vestibular stimulation (VVS) on gait performance and postural control in healthy participants. Five bioscience and engineering databases, including MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, were searched until March 19th, 2023. Studies published between 2000 and 2023 in English involving GVS and VVS related to gait performance and postural control were included. The procedure was followed via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the NIH study quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. A total of 55 cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Five studies were good-quality while 49 were moderate-quality and 1 was poor-quality. There were 50 included studies involving GVS and 5 included studies involving VVS. GVS and VVS utilized different physical agents to provide vestibular stimulation and demonstrated similar effects on vestibular perception. Supra-threshold GVS and VVS produced vestibular perturbation that impaired gait performance and postural control, while sub-threshold GVS and VVS induced stochastic resonance phenomenon that led to an improvement. Bilateral vestibular stimulation demonstrated a greater effect on gait and posture than unilateral vestibular stimulation. Compared to GVS, VVS had the characteristics of better tolerance and fewer side effects, which may substitute GVS to provide more acceptable vestibular stimulation.

Electrical stimulation of the peripheral and central vestibular system

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Electrical stimulation of the peripheral and central vestibular system using noninvasive (galvanic vestibular stimulation, GVS) or invasive (intracranial electrical brain stimulation, iEBS) approaches have a long history of use in studying self-motion perception and balance control. The aim of this review is to summarize recent electrophysiological studies of the effects of GVS, and functional mapping of the central vestibular system using iEBS in awake patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of GVS has become increasingly common in the assessment and treatment of a wide range of clinical disorders including vestibulopathy and Parkinson's disease. The results of recent single unit recording studies have provided new insight into the neural mechanisms underlying GVS-evoked improvements in perceptual and motor responses. Furthermore, the application of iEBS in patients with epilepsy or during awake brain surgery has provided causal evidence of vestibular information processing in mostly the middle cingulate cortex, posterior insula, inferior parietal lobule, amygdala, precuneus, and superior temporal gyrus.

SUMMARY

Recent studies have established that GVS evokes robust and parallel activation of both canal and otolith afferents that is significantly different from that evoked by natural head motion stimulation. Furthermore, there is evidence that GVS can induce beneficial neural plasticity in the central pathways of patients with vestibular loss. In addition, iEBS studies highlighted an underestimated contribution of areas in the medial part of the cerebral hemispheres to the cortical vestibular network.

Noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation influences head stability in young healthy adults while standing on a moving platform

BACKGROUND

The ability to stand with eyes closed on a sinusoidal translational moving platform may be affected by spatial orientation owing to vestibular input information. Moreover, changes in the frequency of the moving platform may affect the sensory reweighting through somatosensory and vestibular sensations. However, it is unclear whether noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation (nGVS), which activates vestibular-related brain regions, affects the stability of individuals standing on a platform moving at different frequencies.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do vestibular stimulation by nGVS and changes in the frequency of translationally moving platforms affect the standing stability of individuals?

METHODS

Thirty-one healthy young adult participants were provided both sham and nGVS interventions while they maintained a static standing position, with their eyes closed, on an anterior-posterior sinusoidal translation platform. The nGVS was adapted to an optimal intensity below the perceptual threshold (frequency band: 100-640 Hz), and the sham stimulus was adapted to 0 µA. The participants were randomly assessed for postural stability at 0.2, 0.6, and 1.2 Hz moving platform frequencies for 80 s each under both stimulus conditions. Postural stability was calculated as the root mean square (RMS) sway from head accelerations in the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions for 50 s between 20 and 70 s during the 80 s period, measured using an inertial sensor placed on the external occipital ridge.

RESULTS

nGVS significantly reduced the RMS sway of head acceleration in the AP direction compared with sham stimulation. Furthermore, nGVS significantly reduced RMS sway in the ML direction compared with sham stimulation at a 1.2 Hz moving platform oscillation.

SIGNIFICANCE

These findings suggest that postural adjustment by the vestibular system influences head stability on a moving platform at specific sinusoidal translation frequencies, suggesting that nGVS may reduce head sway.

Changes in vestibular-related responses to combined noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation and cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation

Vestibular nuclei and cerebellar function comprise vestibular neural networks that control vestibular-related responses. However, the vestibular-related responses to simultaneous stimulation of these regions are unclear. This study aimed to examine whether the combination of noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation (nGVS) and cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) using a complex transcranial electrical stimulation device alters vestibular-dominant standing stability and vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) function. The center of foot pressure (COP) sway and VOR of participants (28 healthy, young adults) were assessed under four conditions of transcranial electrical stimulation using nGVS and ctDCS. The COP was calculated with the participant standing on a soft-foam surface with eyes closed using a force plate to evaluate body sway. VOR measurements were collected via passive head movements and fixation on a target projected onto the front wall using a video head impulse test (vHIT). VOR gain was calculated in six directions using a semicircular canal structure based on the ratio of eye movement to head movement. The nGVS + ctDCS and nGVS + sham ctDCS conditions decreased COP sway compared to the sham nGVS + ctDCS and sham nGVS + sham ctDCS conditions. No significant differences were observed in the main effect of stimulation or the interaction of stimulation and direction on the vHIT parameters. The results of this study suggest that postural stability may be independently affected by nGVS. Our findings contribute to the basic neurological foundation for the clinical application of neurorehabilitation using transcranial electrical stimulation of the vestibular system.

Effects of stochastic vestibular stimulation on cognitive performance in children with ADHD

Previous work has shown that exposure to auditory white noise (WN) can improve cognitive performance in children with ADHD, but it is unknown whether this improvement generalizes to other sensory modalities. To address this knowledge gap, we tested the effect of Stochastic Vestibular Stimulation (SVS) on cognitive performance and reaction time (RT) variability in two groups: children with ADHD and typically developing children (TDC). Children with ADHD (N=42) and TDC (N=28) performed three cognitive tasks (Spanboard, Word Recall and N-back tasks) at two different occasions, with and without exposure to SVS, in a double blinded design. The results showed no main effects of SVS on neither performance nor RT variability for children in any of the groups, and no interactions between SVS and group. Based on these results we conclude that, using our stimulation protocol, the positive effects of WN exposure on cognition in children with ADHD do not generalize to Stochastic Vestibular Stimulation.