Visual Dependency and Dizziness after Vestibular Neuritis

Symptomatic recovery after acute vestibular neuritis (VN) is variable, with around 50% of patients reporting long term vestibular symptoms; hence, it is essential to identify factors related to poor clinical outcome. Here we investigated whether excessive reliance on visual input for spatial orientation (visual dependence) was associated with long term vestibular symptoms following acute VN. Twenty-eight patients with VN and 25 normal control subjects were included. Patients were enrolled at least 6 months after acute illness. Recovery status was not a criterion for study entry, allowing recruitment of patients with a full range of persistent symptoms. We measured visual dependence with a laptop-based Rod-and-Disk Test and severity of symptoms with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). The third of patients showing the worst clinical outcomes (mean DHI score 36–80) had significantly greater visual dependence than normal subjects (6.35° error vs. 3.39° respectively, p = 0.03). Asymptomatic patients and those with minor residual symptoms did not differ from controls. Visual dependence was associated with high levels of persistent vestibular symptoms after acute VN. Over-reliance on visual information for spatial orientation is one characteristic of poorly recovered vestibular neuritis patients. The finding may be clinically useful given that visual dependence may be modified through rehabilitation desensitization techniques

Do you know where your arm is if you think your head has moved?

Reproduction of a previously presented elbow position is affected by changes in head position. As movement of the head is associated with local biomechanical changes, the aim of the present study was to determine if illusory changes in head position could induce similar effects on the reproduction of elbow position. Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) was applied to healthy subjects in supine lying. The stimulus was applied during the presentation of an elbow position, which the subject then reproduced without stimulation. In the first study, 13 subjects received 1.5 mA stimuli, which caused postural sway in standing, confirming that the firing of vestibular afferents was affected, but no illusory changes in head position were reported. In the second study, 13 subjects received 2.0-3.0 mA GVS. Six out of 13 subjects reported consistent illusory changes in head position, away from the side of the anode. In these subjects, anode right stimulation induced illusory left lateral flexion and elbow joint position error towards extension (p=0.03), while anode left tended to have the opposite effect (p=0.16). The GVS had no effect on error in subjects who did not experience illusory head movement with either 1.5 mA stimulus (p=0.8) or 2.0-3.0 mA stimulus (p=0.7). This study demonstrates that the accuracy of elbow repositioning is affected by illusory changes in head position. These results support the hypothesis that the perceived position of proximal body segments is used in the planning and performance of accurate upper limb movements