Vestibular Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic and Electric Stimulation Effects on Human Subjective Visual Vertical Perception

Bioelectromagnetics · 2022 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 763

Using a subjective visual vertical paradigm, for similar SVV precision the ELF-MF condition required more time to adjust SVV and showed higher SVV variability than AC vestibular-specific stimulation. The reported differences between AC and ELF-MF stimulations…

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2022

Study typeother

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Vestibular Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic and Electric Stimulation Effects on Human Subjective Visual Vertical Perception Bouisset N, Villard S, Legros A. Vestibular Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic and Electric Stimulation Effects on Human Subjective Visual Vertical Perception. Bioelectromagnetics. 2022 Jul 8. doi: 10.1002/bem.22417. Abstract Electric fields from both extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) and alternating current (AC) stimulations impact human neurophysiology. As the retinal photoreceptors, vestibular hair cells are graded potential cells and are sensitive to electric fields. Electrophosphene and magnetophosphene literature suggests different impacts of AC and ELF-MF on the vestibular hair cells. Furthermore, while AC modulates the vestibular system more globally, lateral ELF-MF stimulations could be more utricular specific. Therefore, to further address the impact of ELF-MF-induced electric fields on the human vestibular system and the potential differences with AC stimulations, we investigated the effects of both stimulation modalities on the perception of verticality using a subjective visual vertical (SVV) paradigm. For similar levels of SVV precision, the ELF-MF condition required more time to adjust SVV, and SVV variability was higher with ELF-MF than with AC vestibular-specific stimulations. Yet, the differences between AC and ELF-MF stimulations were small. Overall, this study highlights small differences between AC and ELF-MF vestibular stimulations, underlines a potential utricular contribution, and has implications for international exposure guidelines and standards. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionmixed

PopulationHumans

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Subjective visual vertical (SVV) perception
SVV precision
Time to adjust SVV
SVV variability

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
Exposure parameters (field strength, frequency, duration) not reported in abstract
Study design details (randomization, blinding, control/sham) not reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "vestibular stimulation (ELF-MF and AC)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Humans",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Subjective visual vertical (SVV) perception",
    "SVV precision",
    "Time to adjust SVV",
    "SVV variability"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using a subjective visual vertical paradigm, for similar SVV precision the ELF-MF condition required more time to adjust SVV and showed higher SVV variability than AC vestibular-specific stimulation. The reported differences between AC and ELF-MF stimulations were small overall.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Exposure parameters (field strength, frequency, duration) not reported in abstract",
    "Study design details (randomization, blinding, control/sham) not reported in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low-frequency magnetic fields",
    "ELF-MF",
    "alternating current stimulation",
    "electric fields",
    "vestibular system",
    "utricle",
    "subjective visual vertical",
    "SVV",
    "neurophysiology"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Abstract notes implications for international exposure guidelines and standards."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1002/bem.22417
PubMed: 35801487

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library