Héroux Martin E, Law Tammy C Y, Fitzpatrick Richard C, Blouin Jean-Sébastien
School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Neuroscience Research Australia and School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 20;10(4):e0124532. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124532. eCollection 2015.
To determine how the vestibular sense controls balance, we used instantaneous head angular velocity to drive a galvanic vestibular stimulus so that afference would signal that head movement was faster or slower than actual. In effect, this changed vestibular afferent gain. This increased sway 4-fold when subjects (N = 8) stood without vision. However, after a 240 s conditioning period with stable balance achieved through reliable visual or somatosensory cues, sway returned to normal. An equivalent galvanic stimulus unrelated to sway (not driven by head motion) was equally destabilising but in this situation the conditioning period of stable balance did not reduce sway. Reflex muscle responses evoked by an independent, higher bandwidth vestibular stimulus were initially reduced in amplitude by the galvanic stimulus but returned to normal levels after the conditioning period, contrary to predictions that they would decrease after adaptation to increased sensory gain and increase after adaptation to decreased sensory gain. We conclude that an erroneous vestibular signal of head motion during standing has profound effects on balance control. If it is unrelated to current head motion, the CNS has no immediate mechanism of ignoring the vestibular signal to reduce its influence on destabilising balance. This result is inconsistent with sensory reweighting based on disturbances. The increase in sway with increased sensory gain is also inconsistent with a simple feedback model of vestibular reflex action. Thus, we propose that recalibration of a forward sensory model best explains the reinterpretation of an altered reafferent signal of head motion during stable balance.
为了确定前庭觉如何控制平衡,我们使用瞬时头部角速度来驱动电刺激前庭刺激,以便传入信号表明头部运动比实际情况更快或更慢。实际上,这改变了前庭传入增益。当受试者(N = 8)在无视觉的情况下站立时,这种情况使摇摆增加了4倍。然而,在通过可靠的视觉或体感线索实现稳定平衡的240秒适应期后,摇摆恢复正常。与摇摆无关(不由头部运动驱动)的等效电刺激同样会破坏平衡,但在这种情况下,稳定平衡的适应期并未减少摇摆。由独立的、更高带宽的前庭刺激诱发的反射性肌肉反应最初会因电刺激而降低幅度,但在适应期后恢复到正常水平,这与预测相反,即它们在适应增加的感觉增益后会降低,而在适应减少的感觉增益后会增加。我们得出结论,站立时头部运动的错误前庭信号对平衡控制有深远影响。如果它与当前头部运动无关,中枢神经系统没有立即忽略前庭信号以减少其对破坏平衡影响的机制。这一结果与基于干扰的感觉重新加权不一致。随着感觉增益增加而摇摆增加也与前庭反射作用的简单反馈模型不一致。因此,我们提出前向感觉模型的重新校准最能解释在稳定平衡期间对改变的头部运动再传入信号的重新解释。