Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T12:17:45.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Galvanic vestibular stimulation modulates the electrophysiological response during face processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2012

DAVID WILKINSON ,
HEATHER J. FERGUSON  and
ALAN WORLEY
DAVID WILKINSON*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK
HEATHER J. FERGUSON
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK
ALAN WORLEY
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
*
*Address correspondence and reprint requests to: David Wilkinson, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, UK. E-mail: dtw@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) is known to affect the speed and accuracy of visual judgments, the underlying electrophysiological response has not been explored. In the present study, we therefore investigated the effect of GVS on the N170 event-related potential, a marker commonly associated with early visual structural encoding. To elicit the waveform, participants distinguished famous from nonfamous faces that were presented in either upright or inverted orientation. Relative to a sham, stimulation increased the amplitude of the N170 and also elevated power spectra within the delta and theta frequency bands, components that have likewise been associated with face processing. This study constitutes the first attempt to model the effects of GVS on the electrophysiological response and, more specifically, indicates that unisensory visual processes linked to object construction are influenced by vestibular information. Given that reductions in the magnitude of both the N170 event-related potential and delta/theta activity accompany certain disease states, GVS may provide hitherto unreported therapeutic benefit.

Keywords

Transcranial stimulationEvent-related potentialFace perceptionMultisensory processing
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 29 , Issue 4-5 , September 2012 , pp. 255 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Başar, E., Güntekin, B. & Oniz, A. (2006). Principles of oscillatory brain dynamics and a treatise of recognition of faces and facial expressions. Progress in Brain Research 159, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Başar, E., Özgören, M., Öniz, A., Schmiedt, C. & Başar-Eroğlu, C. (2007). Brain oscillations differentiate the picture of one’s own grandmother. International Journal of Psychophysiology 64, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Başar, E., Schmiedt-Fehr, C., Öniz, A. & Başar-Eroğlu, C. (2008). Brain oscillations evoked by the face of a loved one. Brain Research 1214, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bense, S., Stephan, T., Yousry, T., Brandt, T. & Dieterich, M. (2001). Multisensory cortical signal increases and decreases during vestibular galvanic stimulation (fMRI). Journal of Neurophysiology 85, 886–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentin, S., Allison, T., Puce, A., Perez, E. & McCarthy, G. (1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Cognitive Neuropsychology 8, 551–565.Google ScholarPubMed
Bentin, S. & Deouell, L.Y. (2000). Structural encoding and identification in face processing: ERP evidence for separate mechanisms. Cognitive Neuropsychology 17, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bottini, G., Paulesu, E., Gandola, M., Loffredo, S., Scarpa, P., Sterzi, P., Santilli, L., Defanti, C., Scialfa, G., Fazio, F. & Vallar, G. (2005). Left caloric vestibular stimulation ameliorates right hemianesthesia. Neurology 65, 1278–1283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, T., Glausauer, S., Stephan, T., Bense, S., Yousry, T., Deutschländer, A. & Dieterich, M. (2002). Visual-vestibular and visuovisual cortical interaction: New insights from fMRI and PET. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 956, 230–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, G. & Nebes, R. (1975). Patterns of hand preference in a student population. Cortex 11, 230–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappa, S., Sterzi, R., Vallar, G. & Bisiach, E. (1987). Remission of hemineglect and anosognosia during vestibular stimulation. Neuropsychologia 25, 775–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coats, A. (1972). Limit of normal of the galvanic body-sway test. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology 81, 410–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dockree, P. & Robertson, I. (2011). Electrophysiological markers of cognitive deficits in traumatic brain injury: A review. International Journal of Psychophysiology 82, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Driver, J. & Noesselt, T. (2008). Multisensory interplay reveals crossmodal influences on ‘sensory specific’ brain regions, neural responses and judgments. Neuron 57, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eimer, M. (2000). Event-related brain potentials distinguish processing stages involved in face perception and recognition. Clinical Neurophysiology 111, 694–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, R. & Day, B. (2004). Probing the human vestibular system with galvanic stimulation. Journal of Applied Physiology 96, 2301–2316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gersenowies, J., Marosi, E., Cansino, S. & Rodriguez, M. (2010). EEG power spectral measurements comparing normal and “thatcherized” faces. The International Journal of Neuroscience 120, 570–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyce, C.A. & Rossion, B. (2005). The face-sensitive N170 and VPP components manifest the same brain processes: The effect of reference electrode site. Clinical Neurophysiology 116, 2613–2631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junghoefer, M., Elbert, T., Tucker, D. & Braun, C. (1999). The polar effect of the average reference: A bias in estimating the head surface integral in EEG recording. Supplements to Clinical Neurophysiology 110, 1149–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, A. & Lai, V. (2012). Rapid interactions between lexical semantic and word form analysis during word recognition in context: Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24, 1104–1112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kress, T. & Daum, I. (2003). Event-related potentials reflect impaired face recognition in patients with congenital prosopagnosia. Neuroscience Letters 352, 133–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacey, S. & Sathian, K. (2011). Multisensory object representation: Insights from studies of vision and touch. Progress in Brain Research 191, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lobmaier, J.S. & Mast, F.W. (2007). The Thatcher Illusion: Rotating the viewer instead of the picture. Perception 36, 537–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minnebusch, D., Suchan, B., Ramon, M. & Daum, I. (2007). Event-related potentials reflect heterogeneity of developmental prosopagnosia. The European Journal of Neuroscience 25, 2234–2247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purpura, K.P. & Schiff, N.D. (1997). The thalamic intralaminar nuclei: Role in visual awareness. Neuroscientist 3, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorsman, I., Magnusson, M. & Johansson, B.B. (1999). Reduction of visuo-spatial neglect with vestibular galvanic stimulation. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 31, 117–124.Google ScholarPubMed
Rossion, B., Joyce, C., Cottrell, G. & Tarr, M. (2003). Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word and object processing in the visual cortex. NeuroImage 20, 1609–1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossion, B. & Jacques, C. (2008). Does physical interstimulus variance account for early electrophysiological face sensitive responses in the human brain? Ten lessons on the N170. NeuroImage 39, 1959–1979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saj, A., Honoré, J. & Rousseaux, M. (2006). Perception of the vertical in patients with right hemispheric lesion: Effect of galvanic vestibular stimulation. Neuropsychologia 44, 1509–1512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schiff, N. & Pulver, M. (1999). Does vestibular stimulation activate thalamocortical mechanisms that reintegrate impaired cortical regions? Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Series 266, 421–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searcy, J.H. & Bartlett, J.C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 22, 904–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, D.T., Ko, P., Kilduff, P., McGlinchey, R. & Milberg, W. (2005). Improvement of a face perception deficit via sub-sensory galvanic vestibular stimulation. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 11, 925–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, D.T., Nicholls, S., Pattenden, C., Kilduff, P. & Milberg, W. (2008). Galvanic vestibular stimulation speeds visual memory recall. Experimental Brain Research 189, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, D.T., Zubko, O., DeGutis, J., Milberg, W. & Potter, J. (2010). Improvement of a figure copying deficit during subsensory galvanic vestibular stimulation. Journal of Neuropsychology 4, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed