Just Keep Spinning? The Impact of Auditory and Somatosensory Cues on Rotary Chair Testing.

SOMATOSENSORY disorders; VERTIGO; PROMPTS (Psychology); NOISE; COMPUTER software; SPEECH; COST effectiveness; DATA analysis; RESEARCH funding; REFLEXES; SENSORIMOTOR integration; ACCELERATION (Mechanics); MULTIPLE regression analysis; MEDICAL care; SCIENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; ACOUSTIC localization; DESCRIPTIVE statistics; AUDIOMETRY; ROTATIONAL motion; VESTIBULAR apparatus diseases; STATISTICS; AUDITORY perception; COMPARATIVE studies; AUDIOLOGISTS; VESTIBULAR function tests; POSTURAL balance; COGNITION; EYE movements; PHYSIOLOGICAL effects of acceleration; ACCESS to information; THOUGHT & thinking; USER interfaces; PSYCHOSOCIAL factors; DISEASE complications; ADOLESCENCE

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing realistic auditory or somatosensory cues to spatial location would affect measures of vestibulo-ocular reflex gain in a rotary chair testing (RCT) context. Method: This was a fully within-subject design. Thirty young adults age 18-30 years (16 men, 14 women by self-identification) completed sinusoidal harmonic acceleration testing in a rotary chair under five different conditions, each at three rotational frequencies (0.01, 0.08, and 0.32 Hz). We recorded gain as the ratio of the amplitude of eye movement to chair movement using standard clinical procedures. The five conditions consisted of two without spatial information (silence, tasking via headphones) and three with either auditory (refrigerator sound, tasking via speaker) or somatosensory (fan) information. Two of the conditions also included mental tasking (tasking via headphones, tasking via speaker) and differed only in terms of the spatial localizability of the verbal instructions. We used linear mixed-effects modeling to compare pairs of conditions, specifically examining the effects of the availability of spatial cues in the environment. This study was preregistered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/2gqcf/). Results: Results showed significant effects of frequency in all conditions (p < .05), but the only pairs of conditions that were significantly different were those including tasking in one condition but not the other (e.g., tasking via headphones vs. silence). Post hoc equivalence testing showed that the lack of significance in the other comparisons could be confirmed as not meaningfully different. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the presence of externally localizable sensory information, whether auditory or somatosensory, does not affect measures of gain in RCT to any relevant degree. However, these findings also contribute to the increasing body of evidence suggesting that mental engagement ("tasking") does increase gain whether or not it is provided via localizable instructions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]