The vestibulocollic reflex is a compensatory response that stabilizes the head in space. During everyday activities, this stabilizing response is evoked by head movements that typically span frequencies from 0 to 30 Hz. Transient head impacts, however, can elicit head movements with frequency content up to 300 – 400 Hz, raising the question whether vestibular pathways contribute to head stabilization at such high frequencies. Here, we first established that electrical vestibular stimulation modulates human neck motor unit (MU) activity at sinusoidal frequencies up to 300 Hz, but that sensitivity increases with frequency up to a low-pass cutoff of ~70 – 80 Hz. To examine the neural substrates underlying the low-pass dynamics of vestibulocollic reflexes, we then recorded vestibular afferent responses to the same electrical stimuli in monkeys. Vestibular afferents also responded to electrical stimuli up to 300 Hz, but in contrast to MUs their sensitivity increased with frequency up to the afferent resting firing rate (~100 –150 Hz) and at higher frequencies afferents tended to phase-lock to the vestibular stimulus. This latter nonlinearity, however, was not transmitted to neck motoneurons, which instead showed minimal phase-locking that decreased at frequencies >75 Hz. Similar to human data, we validated that monkey muscle activity also exhibited low-pass filtered vestibulocollic reflex dynamics. Together, our results show that neck MUs are activated by high-frequency signals encoded by primary vestibular afferents, but undergo low-pass filtering at intermediate stages in the vestibulocollic reflex. These high-frequency contributions to vestibular-evoked neck muscle responses could stabilize the head during unexpected head transients.

Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) uses the external application of electrical current to selectively target the vestibular system in humans. Despite its recent popularity for the assessment/treatment of clinical conditions, exactly how this non-invasive tool activates the vestibular system remains an open question. Here we directly investigate single vestibular afferent responses to GVS applied to the mastoid processes of awake-behaving monkeys. Transmastoid GVS produces robust and parallel activation of both canal and otolith afferents. Notably, afferent activation increases with intrinsic neuronal variability resulting in constant GVS-evoked neuronal detection thresholds across all afferents. Additionally, afferent tuning differs for GVS versus natural self-motion stimulation. Using a stochastic model of repetitive activity in afferents, we largely explain the main features of GVS-evoked vestibular afferent dynamics. Taken together, our results reveal the neural substrate underlying transmastoid GVS-evoked perceptual, ocular and postural responses—information that is essential to advance GVS applicability for biomedical uses in humans.

Vestibular signals, which encode head movement in space as well as orientation relative to gravity, contribute to the ongoing muscle activity required to stand. The strength of this vestibular contribution changes with the presence and quality of sensory cues of balance. Here we investigate whether the vestibular drive for standing balance also depends on different sensory cues of gravity by examining vestibular-evoked muscle responses when independently varying load and gravity conditions. Standing subjects were braced by a backboard structure that limited whole-body sway to the sagittal plane while load and vestibular cues of gravity were manipulated by: (a) loading the body downward at 1.5 and 2 times body weight (i.e., load cues), and/or (b) exposing subjects to brief periods (20 s) of micro- (<0.05 g) and hyper-gravity (∼1.8 g) during parabolic flights (i.e., vestibular cues). A stochastic electrical vestibular stimulus (0-25 Hz) delivered during these tasks evoked a vestibular-error signal and corrective muscles responses that were used to assess the vestibular drive to standing balance. With additional load, the magnitude of the vestibular-evoked muscle responses progressively increased, however, when these responses were normalized by the ongoing muscle activity, they decreased and plateaued at 1.5 times body weight. This demonstrates that the increased muscle activity necessary to stand with additional load is accompanied a proportionally smaller increase in vestibular input. This reduction in the relative vestibular contribution to balance was also observed when we varied the vestibular cues of gravity, but only during an absence (<0.05 g) and not an excess (∼1.8 g) of gravity when compared to conditions with normal 1 g gravity signals and equivalent load signals. Despite these changes, vestibular-evoked responses were observed in all conditions, indicating that vestibular cues of balance contribute to upright standing even in the near absence of a vestibular signal of gravity (i.e., micro-gravity). Overall, these experiments provide evidence that both load and vestibular cues of gravity influence the vestibular signal processing for the control of standing balance.

Neck muscle activity evoked by vestibular stimuli is a clinical measure for evaluating the function of the vestibular apparatus. Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP) are most commonly measured in the sternocleidomastoid muscle (and more recently the splenius capitis muscle) in response to air-conducted sound, bone-conducted vibration or electrical vestibular stimuli. It is currently unknown, however, whether and how other neck muscles respond to vestibular stimuli. Here we measured activity bilaterally in the sternocleidomastoid, splenius capitis, sternohyoid, semispinalis capitis, multifidus, rectus capitis posterior, and obliquus capitis inferior using indwelling electrodes in two subjects exposed to binaural bipolar electrical vestibular stimuli. All recorded neck muscles responded to the electrical vestibular stimuli (0-100 Hz) provided they were active. Furthermore, the evoked responses were inverted on either side of the neck, consistent with a coordinated contribution of all left-right muscle pairs acting as antagonists in response to the electrically-evoked vestibular error of head motion. Overall, our results suggest that, as previously observed in cat neck muscles, broad connections exist between the human vestibular system and neck motoneurons and highlight the need for future investigations to establish their neural connections.

Standing balance relies on the integration of multiple sensory inputs to generate the motor commands required to stand. Mechanical and sensory perturbations elicit compensatory postural responses that are interpreted as a window into the sensorimotor processing involved in balance control. Popular methods involve imposed external perturbations that disrupt the control of quiet stance. Although these approaches provide critical information on how the balance system responds to external disturbances, the control mechanisms involved in correcting for these errors may differ from those responsible for the regulation of quiet standing. Alternative approaches use manipulations of the balance control loop to alter the relationship between sensory and motor cues. Coupled with imposed perturbations, these manipulations of the balance control loop provide unique opportunities to reveal how sensory and motor signals are integrated to control the upright body. In this review, we first explore imposed perturbation approaches that have been used to investigate the neural control of standing balance. We emphasize imposed perturbations that only elicit balance responses when the disturbing stimuli are relevant to the balance task. Next, we highlight manipulations of the balance control loop that, when carefully implemented, replicate and/or alter the sensorimotor dynamics of quiet standing. We further describe how manipulations of the balance control loop can be used in combination with imposed perturbations to characterize mechanistic principles underlying the control of standing balance. We propose that recent developments in the use of robotics and sensory manipulations will continue to enable new possibilities for simulating and/or altering the sensorimotor control of standing beyond compensatory responses to imposed external perturbations.

Background Effective sensorimotor integration is essential to modulate (adapt) neck stabilization strategies in response to varying tasks and disturbances. This study evaluates the hypothesis that relative to healthy controls cervical dystonia patients have an impaired ability to modulate afferent feedback for neck stabilization with changes in the frequency content of mechanical perturbations. Methods We applied anterior-posterior displacement perturbations (110 s) on the torso of seated subjects, while recording head-neck kinematics and muscular activity. We compared low bandwidth (0.2–1.2 Hz) and high bandwidth (0.2–8 Hz) perturbations where our previous research showed a profound modulation of stabilization strategies in healthy subjects. Cervical dystonia patients and age matched controls performed two tasks: (1) maintain head forward posture and (2) allow dystonia to dictate head posture. Findings Patients and controls demonstrated similar kinematic and muscular responses. Patient modulation was similar to that of healthy controls (P > 0.05); neck stiffness and afferent feedback decreased with high bandwidth perturbations. During the head forward task patients had an increased neck stiffness relative to controls (P 

During standing balance, vestibular signals encode head movement and are transformed into coordinates that are relevant to maintaining upright posture of the whole body. This transformation must account for head-on-body orientation as well as the muscle actions generating the postural response. Here, we investigate whether this transformation is dependent upon a muscle’s ability to stabilize the body along the direction of a vestibular disturbance. Subjects were braced on top of a robotic balance system that simulated the mechanics of standing while being exposed to an electrical vestibular stimulus that evoked a craniocentric vestibular error of head roll. The balance system was limited to move in a single plane while the vestibular error direction was manipulated by having subjects rotate their head in yaw. Vestibular-evoked muscle responses were greatest when the vestibular error was aligned with the balance direction and decreased to zero as the two directions became orthogonal. This demonstrates that muscles respond only to the component of the error that is aligned with the balance direction and thus relevant to the balance task, not to the cumulative afferent activity, as expected for vestibulospinal reflex loops. When we reversed the relationship between balancing motor commands and associated vestibular sensory feedback, the direction of vestibular-evoked ankle compensatory responses was also reversed. This implies that the nervous system quickly reassociates new relationships between vestibular sensory signals and motor commands related to maintaining balance. These results indicate that vestibular-evoked muscle activity is a highly flexible balance response organized to compensate for vestibular disturbances.