The vestibular system detects head motion in space via five peripheral sensory organs located bilaterally in the inner ears: the three semicircular canals, which sense angular rotation in three orthogonal axes, and the two otolith organs, which detect linear acceleration (translational acceleration and gravity) in both horizontal and vertical planes (Figure 1A, left). Together, these peripheral sensors detect six-degree-of-freedom (i.e. three rotational axes and three translational axes) head movement and convey this information to the brain via the VIII nerve. In turn, the brain uses vestibular information to ensure visual and postural stability, as well as an accurate and stable perception of our self-motion and orientation as we move through space (Figure 1A, right). When the vestibular sensors are damaged, these essential functions are disrupted causing disabling symptoms—e.g., blurred vision, dizziness, unstable posture, and gait—which can reduce a patient’s ability to participate in even the simplest of daily activities. It is estimated that more than 1.8 million adults worldwide suffer from bilateral loss of vestibular functions (Boutros et al., 2019a; Schoo et al., 2024). While plasticity does occur within the vestibular pathways following sensory loss (Sadeghi et al., 2012) and can partially improve function (Nashner et al., 1982; Sprenger et al., 2017; Whitney et al., 2016), there had been no effective restorative treatment for those who could not compensate centrally (Sun et al., 2014). An emerging and exciting approach to treat patients is the development of vestibular prostheses. These devices detect head movements and convert them into VIII nerve stimulation, substituting for the damaged peripheral sensors.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

The vestibular system’s distinct features make it exceptionally suitable for advancing neuroprosthesis development, with the opportunity to leverage our fundamental understanding of neuroscience to innovate new technologies for individuals with vestibular loss. First, its peripheral structure allows for targeted stimulation encoding each axis of rotation. Second, the encoding strategies of the vestibular nerves are well studied, facilitating the development of biomimetic stimulation. Finally, vestibular reflexes evoke robust compensatory eye and head movements to ensure gaze and postural stability, which are readily measurable as a direct quantification for functional outcomes. Nevertheless, despite our evolving understanding of the vestibular circuits and mechanisms mediating compensation following sensory loss, many recent prosthesis development efforts have focused on surgical implantation techniques or systematically optimizing stimulation waveforms (reviewed in Soto et al., 2023; Stultiens et al., 2023). Importantly, these studies did not consider the fundamental issue of how the brain actually processes and adapts to the information delivered by neural interface stimulation at the levels of neuronal circuits, individual neurons, and synapses.

Indeed, after decades of research and development since their original conception and pioneering animal prototypes in early 2000s (e.g. Gong and Merfeld, 2000; Gong and Merfeld, 2002, see also Wall et al., 2003, for a review), vestibular prostheses remain far from optimal in their ability to restore function, with varying levels of improvement in patients. At this time, there are three ongoing clinical trials focused on evaluating the potential of vestibular implants as a restorative treatment option for patients with such vestibular loss (i.e. University of Geneva and Maastricht University Hospital group [Crétallaz et al., 2020; Perez Fornos et al., 2014; Guinand et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016; Starkov et al., 2020], Johns Hopkins University group [Boutros et al., 2019a; Chow et al., 2021], and the University of Washington group [Phillips et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2015; Rubinstein et al., 2020]). While these implants help relieve dizziness, reduce visual and postural instability, and improve quality of life in patients with vestibular sensory loss, it is important to emphasize that these essential vestibular functions remain only partially restored (see for example Chow et al., 2021).

In this review, we will bring together the largely separate literatures focused on vestibular neurophysiology, on engineering approaches to optimize stimulation protocols, and on emerging results and challenges of ongoing clinical trials. We will first describe basic physiological principles of vestibular pathways and their implementation in vestibular prostheses. We will next discuss current functional outcomes and limitations in animal research and clinical trials. Finally, we will consider challenges within the field and future directions in light of recent experimental studies, which have provided surprising new insights into how the brain interprets signals from these implants.

To understand how current vestibular prostheses work and how their efficacy can ultimately be improved, it is essential to first consider the physiology of the vestibular periphery and the central pathways that detect, process, and utilize vestibular signals to ensure stable gaze and the maintenance of posture during our daily activities. Accordingly, we begin this review by discussing basic vestibular physiological principles and their implementation (or, more often, lack thereof) in prostheses to restore vestibular functions.

Peripheral sensors and afferents

As noted above, the vestibular system detects head motion with five peripheral sensory organs: three semicircular canals that sense head rotation and two otolith organs that sense linear acceleration (Figure 1A, left). These sensory organs transmit head motion signals—via vestibular afferents within the VIII nerve—to central neurons within the vestibular nuclei to achieve essential functions (Figure 1A, right). When the sensory cells in the periphery (i.e. hair cells) are damaged, vestibular transduction is impaired, resulting in loss of vestibular functions. The most common known cause of hair cells damage is toxicity from systemic aminoglycoside drugs (e.g. gentamicin; Ward et al., 2013). In addition, those with congenital deafness due to loss of auditory hair cells can also lack properly functioning vestibular hair cells (Delmaghani and El-Amraoui, 2022). Vestibular prostheses aim to bypass these damaged sensors by directly detecting head motions and converting them into electrical stimulation of vestibular afferents. However, while these devices attempt to restore normal vestibular afferent activities during head motions, their development has only been guided to varying degrees by basic vestibular physiological principles listed below.

i. The semicircular canal sensors are arranged orthogonally to each other to detect rotational head motion in three dimensions

To date, nearly all vestibular prostheses have been designed to restore semicircular canal rather than otolith function. This is because the geometric organization and corresponding physiology of semicircular canals makes them particularly well suited for prosthesis development. First, the organization of the three semicircular canals is orthogonal, an arrangement that allows for comprehensive detection of angular head rotation along three distinct axes (reviewed in Cullen, 2019; Figure 1A, left). Additionally, the hair cells within each semicircular canal are aligned such that their polarity corresponds to the primary axis of maximum sensitivity, ensuring optimal detection of angular head movements along each axis (reviewed in Goldberg et al., 2012; Figure 1A and B, red arrows). Moreover, the hair cells in each canal are innervated by a distinct nerve bundle. Taken together, this organization thus allows for axis-specific electrical stimulation via targeted electrode placement within each of the three semicircular canals. Accordingly, it is possible to transform three-dimensional (3D) head motion into a canal-based reference frame by measuring head motion using a 3D gyroscope and then projecting this motion into the three rotational axes of the canals (Figure 2A; Boutros et al., 2019a). Once this is done, head motion in each canal plane can be mapped into a modulated pulse train that is delivered independently to its respective canal electrode to directly activate the associated nerve terminal (Figure 2B). This strategy provides a method for the restoration of semicircular canal function in three dimensions.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Indeed, results from both animal studies and clinical trials have demonstrated the ability to induce 3D reflexive eye movements aligned with the respective canal plane using this approach (Figure 2C; Boutros et al., 2019a; Dai et al., 2011). Due to current spread between electrodes, these responses initially show some misalignment. Fortunately, these small misalignments generally display significant improvement within the first week of continuous stimulation due to adaptation within central vestibular pathways (Dai et al., 2011). Moreover, the brain’s remarkable adaptability to misaligned prosthetic input was directly exemplified in a study by Lewis et al., 2003, where electrical stimulation of one canal plane was deliberately translated into stimulation of a different canal afferent. Despite this discrepancy, the brain adapted to the misaligned stimulation, resulting in accurate eye movements within 2 weeks. Overall, these impressive results are not surprising, as it is well known that the human vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) can adapt to extreme misalignment (180 degrees) following continuous wearing of reversing prisms (Gonshor and Jones, 1976). Together, these findings underscore the significance of plasticity within central vestibular pathways in enhancing the effectiveness of prosthetic stimulation.

ii. Individual vestibular nerve afferents encode head motion in two directions by modulating around a baseline firing rate

Hair cells within the vestibular periphery are oriented such that head motions in opposite directions result in the increase or decrease of the electrical activity within the cell body, which in turn modulates the rate of the innervating afferent fibers. At rest (e.g. when there is no head motion), primate vestibular afferents display a robust baseline firing rate (i.e. ~100 spikes/s in macaque monkeys; reviewed in Cullen, 2019; Figure 1B, left). During head motion, the firing rate of a given afferent is then modulated relative to this baseline rate depending on the deflection direction of the innervated hair cells (Figure 1B, middle and right). As a result, each vestibular afferent conveys information about head movement in two opposite directions, by either increasing or decreasing firing rate relative to its baseline. In ongoing clinical trials, vestibular prostheses are typically only implanted in one ear to minimize the potential risks and costs as compared to bilateral implantation (e.g. Boutros et al., 2019a; Golub et al., 2014; Guinand et al., 2015). Thus, to generate responses in both directions, mapping strategies typically utilize the same fundamental principle described above. For example, bidirectional sensitivity has been achieved by modulating the stimulation rates about a baseline rate of typically ~100–150 pulses/s (e.g. Boutros et al., 2019a; Dai et al., 2011). Notably, when this baseline is first turned on, it initially causes an imbalance in the input to the vestibular system. Implanted patients and animals thus must first adapt to this applied baseline stimulation prior to receiving head motion-dependent modulation (approximately 30 min in patients [Boutros et al., 2019a], 3 hr in rhesus monkeys [Dai et al., 2013], and <1 day in squirrel monkeys and guinea pigs [Merfeld et al., 2006; Merfeld et al., 2007]).

iii. There are two classes of vestibular afferents, and they display distinct response dynamics

Vestibular afferents comprise two main classes: regular and irregular afferents. These two classes can be distinguished on the basis of relative differences in resting baseline discharge regularity and morphology (reviewed in Goldberg, 2000). Most notably, as their names suggest, regular afferents fire action potentials at regular intervals at rest while irregular afferents do so with irregular intervals (Figure 3A). In the context of vestibular prosthesis development, it is especially noteworthy that irregular afferents respond more readily to electrical stimulation than regular afferents and thus could be preferentially recruited in response to prosthetic stimulation (Goldberg et al., 1984; Minor and Goldberg, 1991). However, at the relatively high electrical currents typically used for vestibular prostheses stimulation, both afferent types are thought to be recruited (Mitchell et al., 2016; Steinhardt et al., 2022).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

The response dynamics of both regular and irregular canal afferents have been well characterized (reviewed in Cullen, 2019; Goldberg et al., 2012). Both regular and irregular afferents display high-pass tuning in their responses to head rotation; their response gains and phase leads increase with increasing stimulus frequency (Figure 3B). Moreover, irregular afferents show stronger high-pass tuning than their regular counterparts. Notably, irregular afferent response gains are greater than those of regular afferents over much of the physiologically relevant range of head motion (Figure 3B, top). In addition, the responses of irregular afferents reach higher phase leads with increasing frequency such that they actually encode angular head acceleration (rather than velocity) at higher frequencies (Figure 3B, bottom). Overall, the high-pass tuning displayed by regular and irregular afferents is well described by linear models at low frequencies and amplitudes of motion (reviewed in Cullen, 2019).

iv. Vestibular afferents display significant nonlinearities in response to natural head motion

A major finding within the last decade is that vestibular stimuli experienced during natural behaviors often exceed both the amplitude and frequency range used in standard laboratory experiments in both humans and animal models (Carriot et al., 2014; Carriot et al., 2017; Schneider et al., 2015). Importantly, such natural stimuli will easily drive the firing of vestibular afferents into cut-off and/or saturation such that they exhibit substantial nonlinearities (Figure 4A and B; Schneider et al., 2015). Accordingly, linear models are not able to describe the responses of afferents across natural behaviors. Instead, a linear-nonlinear cascade model (Figure 4C)—including a nonlinearity that is well approximated by a sigmoidal function—is required to faithfully represent vestibular afferent responses (Mackrous et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 2015).

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Implementation of the response dynamics and nonlinearity of vestibular afferent encoding (reviewed above in sections iii and iv) occurs in the mapping of head velocity to pulse rate within the vestibular prosthesis (Figure 5). Generally, these mappings have been programmed to directly link angular head velocity to a specific stimulation rate in the encoding scheme (i.e. constant gain and no phase lead at all frequencies; Figure 5, top; see Boutros et al., 2019a; Chow et al., 2021; Perez Fornos et al., 2014, for examples) or to implement the response dynamics known at the time that only focused on attenuation of responses at low frequencies but not the gain increase at higher frequencies (e.g. Gong and Merfeld, 2000; Gong and Merfeld, 2002). However, these mappings did not account for response dynamics of afferents over much of the frequency range corresponding to natural head motion (i.e. up to 20 Hz; Carriot et al., 2014, Carriot et al., 2017; reviewed in Cullen, 2019). While the nonlinearity is accounted for in all prosthesis mappings (e.g. Boutros et al., 2019a; Perez Fornos et al., 2014), only recently was the complete linear transfer functions of afferent coding implemented into a vestibular prosthesis design (Figure 5, bottom; Wiboonsaksakul et al., 2022). It is noteworthy to point out that these transfer functions are based on neural recordings from rhesus monkeys since the actual responses in humans are not known. However, based on genetic, anatomic, and ethologic similarities, we speculate that neural responses from rhesus monkey should well approximate those of humans.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Finally, recent developments in vestibular prostheses have also made use of stimulation approaches utilizing amplitude modulation rather than (or in addition to) pulse rate modulation. Based on computational modeling of vestibular periphery, it has been proposed that while pulse rate modulation alters the firing rates of recruited afferents, pulse amplitude modulation instead alters the number of afferents that are recruited (Nguyen et al., 2016). Studies measuring eye movements in chinchillas and rhesus monkeys have further suggested that pulse amplitude modulation is at least as effective as pulse rate modulation (chinchilla: Davidovics et al., 2012; monkey: Davidovics et al., 2013; Nie et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2018) and that co-modulation of stimulation rate and amplitude could potentially extend the dynamic range of the device (Davidovics et al., 2012; Davidovics et al., 2013). One major caveat, however, is that as the current amplitude increases, it spreads to a larger area of tissue and recruits afferents from neighboring canals resulting in response misalignment (Davidovics et al., 2013). In addition, a recent computational study has shown that current amplitude can have direct, nonlinear effects on the activity of single afferents, which could further complicate the firing of the recruited afferents (Steinhardt et al., 2022).

Central vestibular pathways

The goal of vestibular prostheses is to restore vestibular functions that are ultimately mediated by central vestibular pathways. In particular, the vestibulo-motor pathways that generate stabilizing eye and head movements are well characterized and provide easily quantified readouts of prosthesis performance. Vestibular afferents project from the vestibular periphery via the VIII nerve to the brainstem, where they directly synapse with neurons in the vestibular nuclei. Functionally, there are two main cell classes in the vestibular nuclei: those that help maintain gaze stability and those that contribute to postural stability and perception of self-motion (Figure 6; reviewed in Cullen, 2019). The circuits and functional roles of these two classes of central neurons, namely (i) VOR neurons and (ii) vestibular-only (VO) neurons, are each considered below.

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

VOR neurons are the middle link in the vestibular motor reflex pathways that ensure visual stability via the VOR (Figure 6A, top). This essential reflex provides visual stability during our everyday activities, generating eye movements that are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to ongoing head movement. VOR neurons receive direct VIII nerve input and in turn project directly to extraocular motor neurons that control the eye muscles, constituting a very fast reflex pathway (~5 ms latency; Huterer and Cullen, 2002). These neurons both respond to vestibular stimulation and are sensitive to eye movements, consistent with their role in gaze stabilization. Although VOR neurons receive direct projections from both afferent types, their primary input is from regular afferents (Boyle et al., 1992; Goldberg et al., 1987; Highstein et al., 1987; Minor and Goldberg, 1991). Overall, the response dynamics of regular afferents are well matched to compensate for the delays within the VOR pathways (i.e. synaptic, neural, and muscle activation time) and the dynamics of the oculomotor plant to produce VOR eye movements that temporally match the time course of the head movement (Boyle et al., 1992; Goldberg et al., 1987; Minor and Goldberg, 1991). In addition, the spiking activities of regular afferents, and consequently VOR neurons, faithfully encode the detailed time course of head motion, a coding feature that is required for the generation of accurate compensatory VOR eye movements (Mackrous et al., 2020). Given that the VOR is highly robust and that VOR eye movements can be readily measured, to date, the vast majority of clinical and animal studies have focused on the VOR as the main behavioral output to quantify the efficacy of vestibular prosthetic stimulation.

VO neurons are the second primary class of neurons in the vestibular nuclei (Figure 6A, bottom). Their name reflects the fact that they respond to vestibular stimulation but are completely insensitive to eye movements. VO neurons serve a vital role in controlling postural stability via the vestibulo-spinal pathway. VO neurons send projections to the spinal cord—predominately via indirect pathways that include relay structures such as the interstitial nucleus of Cajal and reticular formation, as well as direct projections (Boyle et al., 1992; Goldberg et al., 1987; Highstein et al., 1987). In contrast to VOR neurons, VO neurons receive their primary input from irregular rather than regular afferents (Boyle et al., 1992; Goldberg et al., 1987; Highstein et al., 1987). The more dynamic responses of irregular afferents (i.e. larger gains and phase leads) are optimized to generate robust postural responses which must account for the larger inertia of the body relative to the eye (Minor and Goldberg, 1991; Peterson, 1998). Moreover, in contrast to VOR neurons, the majority of VO neurons do not faithfully encode the time course of head movements but instead optimize coding via temporal whitening—a property thought to contribute to ensuring postural control and perceptual stability during everyday activities (Mackrous et al., 2020). Similar to VOR, prosthesis-evoked vestibulo-spinal reflex (VSR) head movements are measured as the behavioral output of prosthetic stimulation (Mitchell et al., 2013; Wiboonsaksakul et al., 2023).

Importantly, in addition to mediating the VSR, VO neurons also make important contributions to ascending vestibular pathways that contribute to perception of self-motion and orientation (Figure 6B). In particular, VO neurons send projections via the posterior vestibulo-thalamic pathway, to the thalamus and cortex (reviewed in Cullen and Taube, 2017). This pathway targets the ventroposterior lateral thalamus of the thalamus, which in turn projects to multiple cortical and subcortical areas, including the parieto-insular vestibular cortex, which are thought to be involved in self-motion perception (reviewed in Cullen and Chacron, 2023). In contrast, the vestibular nuclei also send projections via the nucleus prepositus (McCrea et al., 1987) and subsequent relay nuclei to anterodorsal nucleus of the thalamus. In turn, the anterior vestibulothalamic pathway provides vestibular information to the head direction cell network, which contributes to regions involved in navigation and spatial memory including the retrosplenial cortex, entorhinal cortex, and the hippocampus (reviewed in Cullen and Taube, 2017).

While the VOR and VSR, as well as the vestibulo-thalamic pathways, receive differential input weighting from regular and irregular afferents, current vestibular prostheses deliver a single stimulation pulse (with large current amplitude) to recruit all afferents within the target semicircular canal. Consequently, prosthetic stimulation, unlike natural stimulation, is likely to evoke similar activation of both regular and irregular afferents during a specific head motion. To restore activities of both regular and irregular afferents to their (different) natural behaviors, the prosthesis must theoretically be able to independently stimulate each afferent group. While it has been proposed that such a directed approach could potentially be achieved by leveraging the lower recruitment threshold of irregular afferents (i.e. Wall et al., 2003), we speculate that it would be difficult to obtain precise afferent selectivity using currently available pulsatile stimulation-based technology.

Since the conception of the vestibular prosthesis and initial pioneering animal studies in the early 2000s (e.g. Gong and Merfeld, 2000; Gong and Merfeld, 2002, see also Wall et al., 2003, for a review), promising results reported in follow-up animal studies have led to the development of three human prosthesis prototypes which are currently in ongoing clinical trials. Currently, the criteria for implantation in these clinical trials include unsteadiness when walking or standing accompanied by blurred vision or oscillopsia during head movements and/or worsening unsteadiness in the dark or on uneven ground (van de Berg et al., 2020). Vestibular prostheses are thus aimed at patients who cannot compensate centrally and are still experiencing permanent disability due to vestibular loss. Notably, across ongoing clinical trials, two primary strategies are used to modulate vestibular afferent activity. The first strategy is to directly stimulate afferents such that their activity is modulated by head motion similar to healthy individuals (Geneva-Maastricht research group and Johns Hopkins University research group; e.g. Boutros et al., 2019a; Guinand et al., 2015). As discussed above, within this framework it is possible to independently vary or co-vary pulse rate and pulse amplitude modulation to optimize afferent recruitment and stimulation coupled to head motion. A second strategy is to modulate afferent firing such that noisy or inconsistently generated signals are overridden by the prosthesis (University of Washington research group; e.g. Golub et al., 2014). It has been proposed that this strategy, termed a ‘vestibular pacemaker’, is of most use to patients with Meniere’s disease (Golub et al., 2014; see also Wall et al., 2003 and Merfeld et al., 2006, for original conception and animal prototype results). Below, we discuss the functional restorations brought about by both the foundational studies in animal models and clinical trials in patients, particularly those utilizing a head movement coupled modulation strategy.

VOR and visual stability

As mentioned above, over the past decades of vestibular prosthesis development, the VOR has been extensively used to quantify performance (i.e. Figure 7A and B). In healthy animals and human participants, the VOR eye movements are generally quantified by calculating their gain and phase in response to sinusoidal head rotations across a range of frequencies. In healthy humans, the gain of the rotational VOR is ~1.0, meaning there is a compensatory eye velocity equal to the head velocity and in the opposite direction. Accordingly, to facilitate comparison with normal VOR function, studies of implanted nonhuman primates (Boutros et al., 2019b; Dai et al., 2011) as well as implanted patients (Boutros et al., 2019a; Perez Fornos et al., 2014) have measured the eye movements evoked by sinusoidal head rotations. In general, the VOR gain shows significant improvements when the prosthesis modulation is on vs. off (Figure 7C). This is accompanied by improved visual acuity during treadmill walking and head impulses when the prosthesis is turned on Ayiotis et al., 2022; Guinand et al., 2016; Starkov et al., 2020. Additionally, while oscillopsia is not directly correlated with VOR gain across unilateral vestibular loss, bilateral vestibular loss, and cerebellar patient populations (Palla et al., 2008; Geisinger et al., 2024; Morland et al., 1998; Grunfeld et al., 2000), patients in both the Johns Hopkins and Geneva-Maastricht clinical trials have reported reduced or absent oscillopsia symptoms when the prosthesis is turned on Ayiotis et al., 2024; Boutros et al., 2019a; Chow et al., 2021; van Stiphout et al., 2022. Taken together, these findings suggest that the prosthesis has significant potential to improve visual stability.

Figure 7

Download asset Open asset

However, there remains significant room for improvement in evoking sufficient VOR via vestibular prostheses. The gains of the evoked VOR eye movements are not fully compensatory (i.e. gain<1; Figure 7C). Notably, there is considerable variability across both implanted nonhuman primates (Wiboonsaksakul et al., 2022) and patients (Boutros et al., 2019a), such that VOR gains typically range between ~0.2 and 0.6. One obvious approach to improve the VOR gain is to alter the mapping scheme between the detected head motion and stimulation modulation, such that the same head motion gives rise to greater modulation, e.g., by increasing the gain in Figure 5 (Perez Fornos et al., 2014). However, a disadvantage of this strategy is that it comes at the cost of a reduction in the dynamic range that the prosthesis can encode before entering cut-off/saturation. Fortunately, congruent extra-vestibular signals (i.e. visual, tactile, proprioception) can augment prosthetic stimulation to improve the VOR gain. For example, recent work in nonhuman primates has demonstrated greater VOR gain (though still not fully compensatory) from prosthetic stimulation in conjunction with physical rotation compared to prosthetic stimulation alone (Dai et al., 2012; Wiboonsaksakul et al., 2022). The effect is supra-additive, such that the gain during the combined condition was more than the sum of the gains in each separate condition alone.

Balance and gait

A classic study by Suzuki and Cohen, 1964, demonstrated that electrical stimulation of the afferents evoked stereotyped postural reflexes in the neck and limbs, in addition to compensatory VOR eye movements. However, measuring and quantifying these evoked compensatory postural responses is inherently more complex relative to those of the evoked VOR. As a result, studies of the effects of vestibular prostheses on posture and balance are at a more nascent stage. One essential class of vestibular postural reflexes—the vestibulocollic reflex—moves the head on the body to stabilize the head in space as the body moves under it (reviewed in Goldberg and Cullen, 2011). Short pulse trains applied via the vestibular prostheses evokes not only VOR eye movements, but also head motion contralateral to the stimulated side in implanted monkeys (Mitchell et al., 2013). Notably, the amplitude of the evoked compensatory head movement increases with stimulation current amplitude and pulse rate (Mitchell et al., 2013), and the activation of the neck muscles driving these compensatory head movements has been measured via EMG in patients (Fornos et al., 2019).

The second essential class of vestibular postural reflexes are those which generate limb movements to stabilize the whole body in response to a head motion perturbation. Experiments in implanted monkeys have shown improvements in posture when stimulation is provided by a vestibular prosthesis encoding head motion via pulse rate modulation during gaze shifts (Figure 8A; Thompson et al., 2016). Moreover, in implanted patients, short pulse trains applied via the vestibular prostheses to each semicircular canal can generate whole-body postural responses that are biased toward the stimulated canal’s plane (Figure 8B; Phillips et al., 2013). Similarly, more recent studies in implanted patients have demonstrated that modulated vestibular prosthetic stimulation improves performance on both tests that directly assess vestibular function, such as the modified Romberg, and more general tests of posture and balance, including the timed walk and timed up and go tests (Figure 8C; Chow et al., 2021). While the latter two tests are not exclusively vestibular-dependent, the improvements in these tasks underscore the potential of vestibular prosthetic stimulation to enhance overall balance and posture in daily life.

Figure 8

Download asset Open asset

Systems neuroscience is at an exciting juncture with the standard practice shifting toward recording extensive datasets from neural ensembles, a promising development relative to the traditional single-cell recording approach. This shift will further advance our ability to fill a critical gap in our knowledge and answer the fundamental question: How does the brain respond to vestibular prosthetic stimulation? Most studies to date have treated the brain as a ‘black box’ within an input-output system, by applying different input stimulation protocols and then measuring changes in behavioral responses as the output. Such approaches have proven useful in the nascent stage of technology; however, they cannot provide insight into the neural computations that give rise to prosthesis-evoked behaviors. Only by directly studying neural circuits at the population level can we identify the impediments in neural processing affecting neuroprosthesis performance to innovate solutions. Thus, advancing the next generation of implants hinges on experiments focused on understanding how the brain processes prosthetic vestibular inputs in comparison to normal processing in healthy animals. Fortunately, the recent advancement in high-density recording technology should allow for more studies, both at the single-neuron and population level, that further our understanding of neural processing of prosthetic inputs. Accordingly, in this section, we will consider recent studies at the level of single neurons that have provided important new insights, as well as the avenues currently being explored for improving vestibular implants.

Plasticity in stimulated pathways: advantage or challenge?

In clinical trials of vestibular prostheses, the onset of baseline stimulation initially induces an asymmetry in vestibular input between the left and right ears that is interpreted as a head movement, and thus causes nystagmus and postural instability (Boutros et al., 2019a; Chow et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2013b). Patients then adapt to this unilateral baseline stimulation rate over a relatively rapid time course (Figure 9A). It has generally been assumed that adaptation to this asymmetric vestibular input is mediated by central pathways, notably the commissural vestibular pathways (Figure 9B, green; Chiang et al., 2011; Della Santina et al., 2007; Merfeld et al., 2006; Merfeld et al., 2007). Indeed, experiments in rats and mice suggest plasticity in commissural pathways along with cerebellar and cortical vestibular areas that produces changes in functional connectivity within minutes to hours following unilateral vestibular loss, a condition similar to the onset of baseline stimulation with a vestibular prosthesis, which induces asymmetry in the input to central vestibular pathways (Cirelli et al., 1996; Grosch et al., 2021; Kai et al., 2022; Kitahara et al., 1997; Zwergal et al., 2016). In this view, adaptation is beneficial and results in a new setpoint, from which a unilateral implant can up- or down-modulate to encode head motion in two opposing directions.

Figure 9

Download asset Open asset

Importantly however, recent studies exploring the effect of prosthetic stimulation on central pathways have instead established that adaptation to prosthetic stimulation is mediated earlier in the pathway, at the afferent-vestibular nuclei synapse (Figure 9B, red; Mitchell et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2017). Specifically, experiments in implanted monkeys have revealed that prosthetic baseline stimulation actually leads to the rapid and marked (>50%) reduction in efficacy of the afferent-vestibular nuclei synapse, which in turn substantially reduces efficacy of central vestibular pathways within minutes after stimulation onset (Figure 9C; Mitchell et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2017). Adaptation at this synapse is fundamentally problematic because, instead of resulting in a new setpoint (as for central adaptation), it attenuates all prosthetic inputs, including motion-modulated stimulation encoding the head movement information that the prosthesis is trying to restore to the brain. This maladaptive prosthesis-induced reduction in synaptic efficacy occurs at the level of afferent input to both the vestibular nuclei neurons that generate the VOR (Mitchell et al., 2016) and those that control VSR (Mitchell et al., 2017). Rapid complementary plasticity within inhibitory commissural nuclei network contributes to lessen this maladaptive effect of stimulation. However, this rapid plasticity only partially improves behavioral VOR and VSR performance (Mitchell et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2017). Critically, only a few minutes of baseline prosthetic stimulation causes reductions in both VOR and VSR behavioral responses that can persist for more than 8 hr in absence of head motion or further prosthetic stimulation (Mitchell et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2017). Overall, we speculate that the maladaptive reduction in the efficacy of the afferent-vestibular nuclei synapse is a key reason why implanted patients show incomplete restoration of function (Boutros et al., 2019a). How to effectively reduce this undesirable early adaptation and what stimulation parameters—i.e., current amplitude (at sub- or peri-threshold levels) and pulse shapes—contribute to this maladaptation remain open questions for future investigations.

In conjunction with the efforts to understand how the brain processes prosthetic stimulation, much of the recent developments in vestibular prostheses is toward delivering more naturalistic stimulation back to the nervous system. As in other neuroprostheses, it is widely believed that the brain can more promptly and effectively utilize biomimetic and naturalistic sensory information (reviewed in Iskarous and Thakor, 2019; Saal and Bensmaia, 2015). Below, we review emerging approaches to deliver more naturalistic stimuli via the vestibular prosthesis including the biomimetic encoding of head motion, the addition of otolith organ stimulation, and alternative ways to modulate afferent activity.

Biomimetic stimulus design

Vestibular prosthesis development has been largely guided by our fundamental knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of vestibular afferents. Yet, as reviewed above, the vast majority of both clinical trials and animal studies have employed mappings that did not consider how vestibular afferents respond during natural everyday activities, or were implemented based on the limited knowledge available at the time. In general, while prior studies have accounted for the fact that afferents modulate their firing rates around a resting baseline and show cut-off/saturation nonlinearities (see Figure 5, top), they did not account for the high-pass response dynamics of the afferents (i.e. increasing gain and phase lead as a function of frequency; Figure 3B). Instead, the prevailing approach in ongoing clinical trials has been to simply map instantaneous head velocity to a specific pulse rate (i.e. flat gain and no phase lead). Because natural head motion can reach frequencies as high as 20 Hz (Carriot et al., 2014; Carriot et al., 2017), it is essential to consider the high-pass dynamics of vestibular afferents. For example, the phase of VOR eye movements evoked by head motion remains compensatory across the physiological range of motion even at frequencies exceeding 20 Hz (Huterer and Cullen, 2002; Ramachandran and Lisberger, 2005). In theory, without the phase compensation provided by the high-pass dynamics of afferents, VOR eye movements would increasingly lag head motion reaching a lag of >50 degrees for higher frequencies within physiological range. This is because an increase in afferent phase lead as a function of frequency is required to compensate for the fixed delays in the VOR pathways (e.g. synaptic transmission and muscle activation, see Discussion in Huterer and Cullen, 2002).

Indeed, a recent study has confirmed the theoretical scenario above (Wiboonsaksakul et al., 2022). Conventional mappings that did not account for high-pass dynamics of vestibular afferents resulted in decreasing gain and increasingly lagging phase of the evoked VOR, while biomimetic mappings that incorporated high-pass tuning resulted in more robust gain and more accurate phase of the evoked VOR (Figure 5, bottom; Wiboonsaksakul et al., 2022). Further exploration of the parameter space revealed that more extreme tunings were not beneficial in that they produced saturation and unnatural phase advances. Moreover, mapping strategies biased toward the response dynamics of regular afferents yielded better VOR performance than a mapping strategy based on the response dynamics of irregular afferents (Figure 10, blue and purple vs. red). This finding is consistent with prior experimental findings demonstrating that regular afferents make a more significant contribution to VOR pathway than do their irregular counterparts (Boyle et al., 1992; Goldberg et al., 1987; Highstein et al., 1987; Minor and Goldberg, 1991). Future work in vestibular prosthesis development should focus on the relative improvements in performance produced by different biomimetic mappings for different vestibular motor pathways (e.g. regular mapping for VOR vs. irregular mapping for postural control and perception).

Figure 10

Download asset Open asset

Otolith stimulation

To date all but a handful of studies have focused on vestibular prostheses that aim to restore semicircular canals rather than otolith function. As described below, this semicircular canal focused approach is currently well warranted because of the technical challenges of implanting an otolith prosthesis. However, since natural head movements generally comprises both rotational and linear motion, inputs from both the semicircular canal and otolith are typically processed simultaneously and integrated for both behavior and perception (reviewed in Angelaki and Cullen, 2008). Thus, an important future direction for improving functional outcomes in patients with bilateral vestibular loss is restoring otolith as well as semicircular canal input. The otolith organs, however, are a more challenging target for prosthesis development. Notably, although it is straightforward to activate semicircular canal hair cells in a directionally precise manner (i.e. Figure 2), this is not the case for the utricle and saccule.

A key feature of the otoliths is that their hair cells are distributed over the neuroepithelia surface in a systematic manner that comprises a directional tuning map, with the axis of greatest sensitivity perpendicular to the curved line across the otolith organs (Figure 11A, orange lines). This hair cell alignment allows the utricle and saccule to sense linear motion in the horizontal and vertical plane, respectively, and together detect linear forces in three dimensions. For any given head motion direction, different hair cells are excited or inhibited to many varying degrees depending on how their axis of sensitivity aligns with the head motion. Consequently, stimulating the otoliths in a directionally specific manner requires a great number of electrodes that can selectively and independently stimulate a very focused area of the organ. Despite these challenges, the Della Santina laboratory has recently implanted a multichannel planar stimulating array in the otoliths of chinchillas (Figure 11A, gray circles). Stimulation of the otoliths using the implant successfully generated torsional and vertical eye movements consistent with vestibulo-ocular responses to tilt and translation (Hageman et al., 2020), indicating successful stimulation of sections of the otolith sensitive to different axes of head motion. However, precisely positioning the arrays within the otoliths is difficult, requiring surgical approaches that risk damaging other structures. Furthermore, current spread across an implanted otolith limited both the magnitude and spatial selectivity of the device. Thus, significant work remains to be done in developing an otolith prosthesis.

Figure 11

Download asset Open asset

1. 1. Angelaki DE
   2. Cullen KE

   (2008) Vestibular system: the many facets of a multimodal sense

   Annual Review of Neuroscience 31:125–150.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.060407.125555

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Aplin FP
   2. Fridman GY

   (2019) Implantable direct current neural modulation: theory, feasibility, and efficacy

   Frontiers in Neuroscience 13:379.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00379

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Aplin FP
   2. Singh D
   3. Santina CCD
   4. Fridman GY

   (2019) Ionic Direct current modulation for combined inhibition/excitation of the vestibular system

   IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering 66:775–783.

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2018.2856698

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. Conference

   1. Ayiotis AI
   2. Chow MR
   3. Fernandez Brillet C
   4. Lane KE
   5. Schoo DP
   6. Carey JP
   7. Della Santina CC

   (2022) Modulating vestibular implant stimulation using angular head velocity and acceleration

   31st Bárány Society Meeting.

   https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-220211

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Ayiotis AI
   2. Schoo DP
   3. Fernandez Brillet C
   4. Lane KE
   5. Carey JP
   6. Della Santina CC

   (2024) Patient-reported outcomes after vestibular implantation for bilateral vestibular hypofunction

   JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck Surgery 150:240–248.

   https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2023.4475

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Babalian AL
   2. Ryugo DK
   3. Rouiller EM

   (2003) Discharge properties of identified cochlear nucleus neurons and auditory nerve fibers in response to repetitive electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve

   Experimental Brain Research 153:452–460.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1619-x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Boutros PJ
   2. Schoo DP
   3. Rahman M
   4. Valentin NS
   5. Chow MR
   6. Ayiotis AI
   7. Morris BJ
   8. Hofner A
   9. Rascon AM
   10. Marx A
   11. Deas R
   12. Fridman GY
   13. Davidovics NS
   14. Ward BK
   15. Treviño C
   16. Bowditch SP
   17. Roberts DC
   18. Lane KE
   19. Gimmon Y
   20. Schubert MC
   21. Carey JP
   22. Jaeger A
   23. Della Santina CC

   (2019a) Continuous vestibular implant stimulation partially restores eye-stabilizing reflexes

   JCI Insight 4:e128397.

   https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.128397

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Boutros PJ
   2. Valentin NS
   3. Hageman KN
   4. Dai C
   5. Roberts D
   6. Della Santina CC

   (2019b) Nonhuman primate vestibuloocular reflex responses to prosthetic vestibular stimulation are robust to pulse timing errors caused by temporal discretization

   Journal of Neurophysiology 121:2256–2266.

   https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00887.2018

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Boyle R
   2. Goldberg JM
   3. Highstein SM

   (1992) Inputs from regularly and irregularly discharging vestibular nerve afferents to secondary neurons in squirrel monkey vestibular nuclei. III. Correlation with vestibulospinal and vestibuloocular output pathways

   Journal of Neurophysiology 68:471–484.

   https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1992.68.2.471

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Calzolari E
    2. Chepisheva M
    3. Smith RM
    4. Mahmud M
    5. Hellyer PJ
    6. Tahtis V
    7. Arshad Q
    8. Jolly A
    9. Wilson M
    10. Rust H
    11. Sharp DJ
    12. Seemungal BM

    (2021) Vestibular agnosia in traumatic brain injury and its link to imbalance

    Brain 144:128–143.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa386

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Carriot J
    2. Jamali M
    3. Chacron MJ
    4. Cullen KE

    (2014) Statistics of the vestibular input experienced during natural self-motion: implications for neural processing

    The Journal of Neuroscience 34:8347–8357.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0692-14.2014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Carriot J
    2. Jamali M
    3. Chacron MJ
    4. Cullen KE

    (2017) The statistics of the vestibular input experienced during natural self-motion differ between rodents and primates

    The Journal of Physiology 595:2751–2766.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/JP273734

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chiang B
    2. Fridman GY
    3. Dai C
    4. Rahman MA
    5. Della Santina CC

    (2011) Design and performance of a multichannel vestibular prosthesis that restores semicircular canal sensation in rhesus monkey

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 19:588–598.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2011.2164937

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Chow MR
    2. Ayiotis AI
    3. Schoo DP
    4. Gimmon Y
    5. Lane KE
    6. Morris BJ
    7. Rahman MA
    8. Valentin NS
    9. Boutros PJ
    10. Bowditch SP
    11. Ward BK
    12. Sun DQ
    13. Treviño Guajardo C
    14. Schubert MC
    15. Carey JP
    16. Della Santina CC

    (2021) Posture, gait, quality of life, and hearing with a vestibular implant

    The New England Journal of Medicine 384:521–532.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2020457

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cirelli C
    2. Pompeiano M
    3. D’Ascanio P
    4. Arrighi P
    5. Pompeiano O

    (1996) c-fos Expression in the rat brain after unilateral labyrinthectomy and its relation to the uncompensated and compensated stages

    Neuroscience 70:515–546.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(95)00369-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Crétallaz C
    2. Boutabla A
    3. Cavuscens S
    4. Ranieri M
    5. Nguyen TAK
    6. Kingma H
    7. Van De Berg R
    8. Guinand N
    9. Pérez Fornos A

    (2020) Influence of systematic variations of the stimulation profile on responses evoked with a vestibular implant prototype in humans

    Journal of Neural Engineering 17:036027.

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab8342

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Cullen KE
    2. Taube JS

    (2017) Our sense of direction: progress, controversies and challenges

    Nature Neuroscience 20:1465–1473.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4658

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Cullen KE

    (2019) Vestibular processing during natural self-motion: implications for perception and action

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 20:346–363.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0153-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Cullen KE
    2. Chacron MJ

    (2023) Neural substrates of perception in the vestibular thalamus during natural self-motion: A review

    Current Research in Neurobiology 4:100073.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crneur.2023.100073

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Dai C
    2. Fridman GY
    3. Davidovics NS
    4. Chiang B
    5. Ahn JH
    6. Della Santina CC

    (2011) Restoration of 3D vestibular sensation in rhesus monkeys using a multichannel vestibular prosthesis

    Hearing Research 281:74–83.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2011.08.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. Conference

    1. Dai C
    2. Ahn JH
    3. Fridman G
    4. Rahman M
    5. Della Santina C

    (2012)

    Responses of vestibular-deficient rhesus monkeys to prosthetic stimulation via a mulitchannel vestibular prosthesis are enchanced when multisensory inputs are congruent

    Abstracts of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Midwinter Research Meeting, Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Dai C
    2. Fridman GY
    3. Chiang B
    4. Rahman MA
    5. Ahn JH
    6. Davidovics NS
    7. Della Santina CC

    (2013) Directional plasticity rapidly improves 3D vestibulo-ocular reflex alignment in monkeys using a multichannel vestibular prosthesis

    Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 14:863–877.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-013-0413-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Dale A
    2. Cullen KE

    (2013) The nucleus prepositus predominantly outputs eye movement-related information during passive and active self-motion

    Journal of Neurophysiology 109:1900–1911.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00788.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Davidovics NS
    2. Fridman GY
    3. Della Santina CC

    (2012) Co-modulation of stimulus rate and current from elevated baselines expands head motion encoding range of the vestibular prosthesis

    Experimental Brain Research 218:389–400.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3025-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Davidovics NS
    2. Rahman MA
    3. Dai C
    4. Ahn J
    5. Fridman GY
    6. Della Santina CC

    (2013) Multichannel vestibular prosthesis employing modulation of pulse rate and current with alignment precompensation elicits improved VOR performance in monkeys

    Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 14:233–248.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-013-0370-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Della Santina CC
    2. Migliaccio AA
    3. Patel AH

    (2007) A multichannel semicircular canal neural prosthesis using electrical stimulation to restore 3-d vestibular sensation

    IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering 54:1016–1030.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2007.894629

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Delmaghani S
    2. El-Amraoui A

    (2022) The genetic and phenotypic landscapes of Usher syndrome: from disease mechanisms to a new classification

    Human Genetics 141:709–735.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-022-02448-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Dobbels B
    2. Lucieer F
    3. Mertens G
    4. Gilles A
    5. Moyaert J
    6. van de Heyning P
    7. Guinand N
    8. Pérez Fornos A
    9. Herssens N
    10. Hallemans A
    11. Vereeck L
    12. Vanderveken O
    13. Van Rompaey V
    14. van de Berg R

    (2020) Prospective cohort study on the predictors of fall risk in 119 patients with bilateral vestibulopathy

    PLOS ONE 15:e0228768.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228768

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Forbes PA
    2. Kwan A
    3. Rasman BG
    4. Mitchell DE
    5. Cullen KE
    6. Blouin JS

    (2020) Neural mechanisms underlying high-frequency vestibulocollic reflexes in humans and monkeys

    The Journal of Neuroscience 40:1874–1887.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1463-19.2020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Forbes PA
    2. Kwan A
    3. Mitchell DE
    4. Blouin JS
    5. Cullen KE

    (2023) The neural basis for biased behavioral responses evoked by galvanic vestibular stimulation in primates

    The Journal of Neuroscience 43:1905–1919.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0987-22.2023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Fornos AP
    2. van de Berg R
    3. Armand S
    4. Cavuscens S
    5. Ranieri M
    6. Crétallaz C
    7. Kingma H
    8. Guyot JP
    9. Guinand N

    (2019) Cervical myogenic potentials and controlled postural responses elicited by a prototype vestibular implant

    Journal of Neurology 266:33–41.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09491-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. Conference

    1. Fridman GY
    2. Della Santina CC

    (2013) Safe direct current stimulator 2: concept and design Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society

    IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference. pp. 3126–3129.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610203

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Geisinger D
    2. Elyoseph Z
    3. Zaltzman R
    4. Mintz M
    5. Gordon CR

    (2024) Functional impact of bilateral vestibular loss and the unexplained complaint of oscillopsia

    Frontiers in Neurology 15:1365369.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1365369

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Goldberg JM
    2. Smith CE
    3. Fernández C

    (1984) Relation between discharge regularity and responses to externally applied galvanic currents in vestibular nerve afferents of the squirrel monkey

    Journal of Neurophysiology 51:1236–1256.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1984.51.6.1236

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Goldberg JM
    2. Highstein SM
    3. Moschovakis AK
    4. Fernandez C

    (1987) Inputs from regularly and irregularly discharging vestibular nerve afferents to secondary neurons in the vestibular nuclei of the squirrel monkey. I. An electrophysiological analysis

    Journal of Neurophysiology 58:700–718.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1987.58.4.700

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Goldberg JM

    (2000) Afferent diversity and the organization of central vestibular pathways

    Experimental Brain Research 130:277–297.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Goldberg JM
    2. Cullen KE

    (2011) Vestibular control of the head: possible functions of the vestibulocollic reflex

    Experimental Brain Research 210:331–345.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2611-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. Book

    1. Goldberg JM
    2. Wilson VJ
    3. Cullen KE
    4. Angelaki DE
    5. Broussard DM
    6. Büttner-Ennever JA
    7. Fukushima K
    8. Minor LB

    (2012)

    The Vestibular System: A Sixth Sense

    Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Golub JS
    2. Ling L
    3. Nie K
    4. Nowack A
    5. Shepherd SJ
    6. Bierer SM
    7. Jameyson E
    8. Kaneko CRS
    9. Phillips JO
    10. Rubinstein JT

    (2014) Prosthetic implantation of the human vestibular system

    Otology & Neurotology 35:136–147.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Gong W
    2. Merfeld DM

    (2000) Prototype neural semicircular canal prosthesis using patterned electrical stimulation

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering 28:572–581.

    https://doi.org/10.1114/1.293

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Gong W
    2. Merfeld DM

    (2002) System design and performance of a unilateral horizontal semicircular canal prosthesis

    IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering 49:175–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/10.979358

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Gonshor A
    2. Jones GM

    (1976) Extreme vestibulo-ocular adaptation induced by prolonged optical reversal of vision

    The Journal of Physiology 256:381–414.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1976.sp011330

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Grosch M
    2. Lindner M
    3. Bartenstein P
    4. Brandt T
    5. Dieterich M
    6. Ziegler S
    7. Zwergal A

    (2021) Dynamic whole-brain metabolic connectivity during vestibular compensation in the rat

    NeuroImage 226:117588.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117588

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Grunfeld EA
    2. Morland AB
    3. Bronstein AM
    4. Gresty MA

    (2000) Adaptation to oscillopsia: a psychophysical and questionnaire investigation

    Brain 123:277–290.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.2.277

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Guinand N
    2. van de Berg R
    3. Cavuscens S
    4. Stokroos RJ
    5. Ranieri M
    6. Pelizzone M
    7. Kingma H
    8. Guyot JP
    9. Perez-Fornos A

    (2015) Vestibular implants: 8 years of experience with electrical stimulation of the vestibular nerve in 11 patients with bilateral vestibular loss

    ORL; Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Its Related Specialties 77:227–240.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000433554

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Guinand N
    2. Van de Berg R
    3. Cavuscens S
    4. Stokroos R
    5. Ranieri M
    6. Pelizzone M
    7. Kingma H
    8. Guyot JP
    9. Pérez Fornos A

    (2016) Restoring visual acuity in dynamic conditions with a vestibular implant

    Frontiers in Neuroscience 10:577.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00577

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Hadi Z
    2. Mahmud M
    3. Pondeca Y
    4. Calzolari E
    5. Chepisheva M
    6. Smith RM
    7. Rust HM
    8. Sharp DJ
    9. Seemungal BM

    (2022) The human brain networks mediating the vestibular sensation of self-motion

    Journal of the Neurological Sciences 443:120458.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2022.120458

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Hadi Z
    2. Pondeca Y
    3. Rust HM
    4. Seemungal BM

    (2024) Electrophysiological markers of vestibular-mediated self-motion perception - A pilot study

    Brain Research 1840:149048.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2024.149048

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Hageman KN
    2. Chow MR
    3. Roberts D
    4. Boutros PJ
    5. Tooker A
    6. Lee K
    7. Felix S
    8. Pannu SS
    9. Haque R
    10. Della Santina CC

    (2020) Binocular 3D otolith-ocular reflexes: responses of chinchillas to prosthetic electrical stimulation targeting the utricle and saccule

    Journal of Neurophysiology 123:259–276.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00883.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Hartmann R
    2. Topp G
    3. Klinke R

    (1984) Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory fibers with electrical stimulation of the cochlea

    Hearing Research 13:47–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(84)90094-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Helmchen C
    2. Machner B
    3. Rother M
    4. Spliethoff P
    5. Göttlich M
    6. Sprenger A

    (2020) Effects of galvanic vestibular stimulation on resting state brain activity in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy

    Human Brain Mapping 41:2527–2547.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24963

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Highstein SM
    2. Goldberg JM
    3. Moschovakis AK
    4. Fernández C

    (1987) Inputs from regularly and irregularly discharging vestibular nerve afferents to secondary neurons in the vestibular nuclei of the squirrel monkey. II. Correlation with output pathways of secondary neurons

    Journal of Neurophysiology 58:719–738.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1987.58.4.719

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Hu N
    2. Miller CA
    3. Abbas PJ
    4. Robinson BK
    5. Woo J

    (2010) Changes in auditory nerve responses across the duration of sinusoidally amplitude-modulated electric pulse-train stimuli

    Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 11:641–656.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-010-0225-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Huterer M
    2. Cullen KE

    (2002) Vestibuloocular reflex dynamics during high-frequency and high-acceleration rotations of the head on body in rhesus monkey

    Journal of Neurophysiology 88:13–28.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.2002.88.1.13

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Ishiyama A
    2. Lopez I
    3. Ishiyama G
    4. Tang Y

    (2004) Unbiased quantification of the microdissected human Scarpa’s ganglion neurons

    The Laryngoscope 114:1496–1499.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200408000-00033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Iskarous MM
    2. Thakor NV

    (2019) E-skins: biomimetic sensing and encoding for upper limb prostheses

    Proceedings of the IEEE 107:2052–2064.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2019.2939369

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Kai R
    2. Takahashi K
    3. Tainaka K
    4. Iwakura Y
    5. Namba H
    6. Saito N
    7. Sasaoka T
    8. Yamaguchi S
    9. Nawa H
    10. Horii A

    (2022) Cerebrocortical activation following unilateral labyrinthectomy in mice characterized by whole-brain clearing: implications for sensory reweighting

    Scientific Reports 12:15424.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19678-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Karmali F
    2. Haburcakova C
    3. Gong W
    4. Della Santina CC
    5. Merfeld DM
    6. Lewis RF

    (2021) An implanted vestibular prosthesis improves spatial orientation in animals with severe vestibular damage

    The Journal of Neuroscience 41:3879–3888.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2204-20.2021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Kiang NYS
    2. Moxon EC

    (1972) Physiological considerations in artificial stimulation of the inner ear

    Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 81:714–730.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/000348947208100513

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Kitahara T
    2. Takeda N
    3. Saika T
    4. Kubo T
    5. Kiyama H

    (1997) Role of the flocculus in the development of vestibular compensation: immunohistochemical studies with retrograde tracing and flocculectomy using Fos expression as a marker in the rat brainstem

    Neuroscience 76:571–580.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4522(96)00374-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Kurioka T
    2. Lee MY
    3. Heeringa AN
    4. Beyer LA
    5. Swiderski DL
    6. Kanicki AC
    7. Kabara LL
    8. Dolan DF
    9. Shore SE
    10. Raphael Y

    (2016) Selective hair cell ablation and noise exposure lead to different patterns of changes in the cochlea and the cochlear nucleus

    Neuroscience 332:242–257.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.07.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Kwan A
    2. Forbes PA
    3. Mitchell DE
    4. Blouin JS
    5. Cullen KE

    (2019) Neural substrates, dynamics and thresholds of galvanic vestibular stimulation in the behaving primate

    Nature Communications 10:1904.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09738-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. La Scaleia B
    2. Siena A
    3. D’Onofrio L
    4. Celli A
    5. Capuzzi G
    6. Latino A
    7. Nateri Cara G
    8. Maddaloni E
    9. Zampetti S
    10. Buzzetti R
    11. Zago M
    12. Lacquaniti F

    (2024) Deterioration of vestibular motion perception: a risk factor for postural instability and falls in elderly with type 2 diabetes

    Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 40:e3845.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3845

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Lewis RF
    2. Gong W
    3. Ramsey M
    4. Minor L
    5. Boyle R
    6. Merfeld DM

    (2003) Vestibular adaptation studied with a prosthetic semicircular canal

    Journal of Vestibular Research 12:87–94.

    https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-2003-122-304

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Lewis RF
    2. Haburcakova C
    3. Gong W
    4. Lee D
    5. Merfeld D

    (2013a) Electrical stimulation of semicircular canal afferents affects the perception of head orientation

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:9530–9535.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0112-13.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Lewis RF
    2. Nicoucar K
    3. Gong W
    4. Haburcakova C
    5. Merfeld DM

    (2013b) Adaptation of vestibular tone studied with electrical stimulation of semicircular canal afferents

    Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 14:331–340.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-013-0376-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Litvak LM
    2. Smith ZM
    3. Delgutte B
    4. Eddington DK

    (2003) Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory-nerve activity by high-frequency pulse trains of long duration

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114:2066–2078.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1612492

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Mackrous I
    2. Carriot J
    3. Cullen KE
    4. Chacron MJ

    (2020) Neural variability determines coding strategies for natural self-motion in macaque monkeys

    eLife 9:e57484.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57484

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Mackrous I
    2. Carriot J
    3. Cullen KE

    (2022) Context-independent encoding of passive and active self-motion in vestibular afferent fibers during locomotion in primates

    Nature Communications 13:120.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27753-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Manca M
    2. Glowatzki E
    3. Roberts DC
    4. Fridman GY
    5. Aplin FP

    (2019) Ionic direct current modulation evokes spike-rate adaptation in the vestibular periphery

    Scientific Reports 9:18924.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55045-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Massot C
    2. Chacron MJ
    3. Cullen KE

    (2011) Information transmission and detection thresholds in the vestibular nuclei: single neurons vs. population encoding

    Journal of Neurophysiology 105:1798–1814.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00910.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. McCrea RA
    2. Strassman A
    3. May E
    4. Highstein SM

    (1987) Anatomical and physiological characteristics of vestibular neurons mediating the horizontal vestibulo-ocular reflex of the squirrel monkey

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 264:547–570.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902640408

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. McElvain LE
    2. Bagnall MW
    3. Sakatos A
    4. du Lac S

    (2010) Bidirectional plasticity gated by hyperpolarization controls the gain of postsynaptic firing responses at central vestibular nerve synapses

    Neuron 68:763–775.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Merfeld DM
    2. Gong W
    3. Morrissey J
    4. Saginaw M
    5. Haburcakova C
    6. Lewis RF

    (2006) Acclimation to chronic constant-rate peripheral stimulation provided by a vestibular prosthesis

    IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering 53:2362–2372.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2006.883645

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Merfeld DM
    2. Haburcakova C
    3. Gong W
    4. Lewis RF

    (2007) Chronic vestibulo-ocular reflexes evoked by a vestibular prosthesis

    IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering 54:1005–1015.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2007.891943

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Minor LB
    2. Goldberg JM

    (1991) Vestibular-nerve inputs to the vestibulo-ocular reflex: a functional-ablation study in the squirrel monkey

    The Journal of Neuroscience 11:1636–1648.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.11-06-01636.1991

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Mitchell DE
    2. Dai C
    3. Rahman MA
    4. Ahn JH
    5. Della Santina CC
    6. Cullen KE

    (2013) Head movements evoked in alert rhesus monkey by vestibular prosthesis stimulation: implications for postural and gaze stabilization

    PLOS ONE 8:e78767.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078767

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Mitchell DE
    2. Della Santina CC
    3. Cullen KE

    (2016) Plasticity within non-cerebellar pathways rapidly shapes motor performance in vivo

    Nature Communications 7:11238.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11238

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Mitchell DE
    2. Della Santina CC
    3. Cullen KE

    (2017) Plasticity within excitatory and inhibitory pathways of the vestibulo-spinal circuitry guides changes in motor performance

    Scientific Reports 7:853.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00956-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Morland AB
    2. Bronstein AM
    3. Ruddock KH
    4. Wooding DS

    (1998) Oscillopsia: visual function during motion in the absence of vestibulo-ocular reflex

    Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 65:828–835.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.65.6.828

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Nadol JB

    (1997) Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation

    Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery 117:220–228.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0194-5998(97)70178-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Nashner LM
    2. Black FO
    3. Wall C

    (1982) Adaptation to altered support and visual conditions during stance: patients with vestibular deficits

    The Journal of Neuroscience 2:536–544.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.02-05-00536.1982

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Nguyen TAK
    2. DiGiovanna J
    3. Cavuscens S
    4. Ranieri M
    5. Guinand N
    6. van de Berg R
    7. Carpaneto J
    8. Kingma H
    9. Guyot JP
    10. Micera S
    11. Fornos AP

    (2016) Characterization of pulse amplitude and pulse rate modulation for a human vestibular implant during acute electrical stimulation

    Journal of Neural Engineering 13:046023.

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/13/4/046023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Nie K
    2. Ling L
    3. Bierer SM
    4. Kaneko CRS
    5. Fuchs AF
    6. Oxford T
    7. Rubinstein JT
    8. Phillips JO

    (2013) An experimental vestibular neural prosthesis: design and preliminary results with rhesus monkeys stimulated with modulated pulses

    IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering 60:1685–1692.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2013.2241433

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Nigmatullina Y
    2. Hellyer PJ
    3. Nachev P
    4. Sharp DJ
    5. Seemungal BM

    (2015) The neuroanatomical correlates of training-related perceptuo-reflex uncoupling in dancers

    Cerebral Cortex 25:554–562.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht266

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Palla A
    2. Straumann D
    3. Bronstein AM

    (2008) Vestibular neuritis: vertigo and the high-acceleration vestibulo-ocular reflex

    Journal of Neurology 255:1479–1482.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-008-0935-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Perez Fornos A
    2. Guinand N
    3. van de Berg R
    4. Stokroos R
    5. Micera S
    6. Kingma H
    7. Pelizzone M
    8. Guyot J-P

    (2014) Artificial balance: restoration of the vestibulo-ocular reflex in humans with a prototype vestibular neuroprosthesis

    Frontiers in Neurology 5:66.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2014.00066

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Peterson EH

    (1998) Are there parallel channels in the vestibular nerve? news in physiological sciences

    An International Journal of Physiology Produced Jointly by the International Union of Physiological Sciences and the American Physiological Society 13:194–201.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/physiologyonline.1998.13.4.194

    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Phillips C
    2. Defrancisci C
    3. Ling L
    4. Nie K
    5. Nowack A
    6. Phillips JO
    7. Rubinstein JT

    (2013) Postural responses to electrical stimulation of the vestibular end organs in human subjects

    Experimental Brain Research 229:181–195.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3604-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Phillips C
    2. Ling L
    3. Oxford T
    4. Nowack A
    5. Nie K
    6. Rubinstein JT
    7. Phillips JO

    (2015) Longitudinal performance of an implantable vestibular prosthesis

    Hearing Research 322:200–211.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2014.09.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Phillips JO
    2. Ling L
    3. Nowack AL
    4. Phillips CM
    5. Nie K
    6. Rubinstein JT

    (2018) The Dynamics of prosthetically elicited vestibulo-ocular reflex function across frequency and context in the rhesus monkey

    Frontiers in Neuroscience 12:88.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00088

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Quass GL
    2. Baumhoff P
    3. Gnansia D
    4. Stahl P
    5. Kral A

    (2020) Level coding by phase duration and asymmetric pulse shape reduce channel interactions in cochlear implants

    Hearing Research 396:108070.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2020.108070

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Ramachandran R
    2. Lisberger SG

    (2005) Normal performance and expression of learning in the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) at high frequencies

    Journal of Neurophysiology 93:2028–2038.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00832.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Rubinstein JT
    2. Wilson BS
    3. Finley CC
    4. Abbas PJ

    (1999) Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation

    Hearing Research 127:108–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-5955(98)00185-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Rubinstein JT
    2. Ling L
    3. Nowack A
    4. Nie K
    5. Phillips JO

    (2020) Results from a second-generation vestibular implant in human subjects: diagnosis may impact electrical sensitivity of vestibular afferents

    Otology & Neurotology 41:68–77.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002463

    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Ruehl RM
    2. Flanagin VL
    3. Ophey L
    4. Raiser TM
    5. Seiderer K
    6. Ertl M
    7. Conrad J
    8. Zu Eulenburg P

    (2022) The human egomotion network

    NeuroImage 264:119715.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119715

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Runge CL
    2. Du F
    3. Hu Y

    (2018) Improved speech perception in cochlear implant users with interleaved high-rate pulse trains

    Otology & Neurotology 39:e319–e324.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001790

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Saal HP
    2. Bensmaia SJ

    (2015) Biomimetic approaches to bionic touch through a peripheral nerve interface

    Neuropsychologia 79:344–353.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.06.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Sachs MB
    2. Young ED
    3. Miller MI

    (1983) Speech encoding in the auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implants

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 405:94–113.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1983.tb31622.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Sadeghi SG
     2. Minor LB
     3. Cullen KE

     (2012) Neural correlates of sensory substitution in vestibular pathways following complete vestibular loss

     The Journal of Neuroscience 32:14685–14695.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2493-12.2012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Schneider AD
     2. Jamali M
     3. Carriot J
     4. Chacron MJ
     5. Cullen KE

     (2015) The increased sensitivity of irregular peripheral canal and otolith vestibular afferents optimizes their encoding of natural stimuli

     The Journal of Neuroscience 35:5522–5536.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3841-14.2015

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Schoo DP
     2. Ward BK
     3. Chow MR
     4. Ayiotis AI
     5. Fernández Brillet C
     6. Boutros PJ
     7. Lane KE
     8. Lee CN
     9. Morris BJ
     10. Carey JP
     11. Della Santina CC

     (2024) Vestibular implant surgery

     The Laryngoscope 134:1842–1846.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.31004

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Shibata SB
     2. Budenz CL
     3. Bowling SA
     4. Pfingst BE
     5. Raphael Y

     (2011) Nerve maintenance and regeneration in the damaged cochlea

     Hearing Research 281:56–64.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2011.04.019

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Soto E
     2. Pliego A
     3. Vega R

     (2023) Vestibular prosthesis: from basic research to clinics

     Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 17:1161860.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2023.1161860

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Spoendlin H

     (1975) Retrograde degeneration of the cochlear nerve

     Acta Oto-Laryngologica 79:266–275.

     https://doi.org/10.3109/00016487509124683

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Sprenger A
     2. Wojak JF
     3. Jandl NM
     4. Helmchen C

     (2017) Postural control in bilateral vestibular failure: its relation to visual, proprioceptive, vestibular, and cognitive input

     Frontiers in Neurology 8:444.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00444

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Starkov D
     2. Guinand N
     3. Lucieer F
     4. Ranieri M
     5. Cavuscens S
     6. Pleshkov M
     7. Guyot JP
     8. Kingma H
     9. Ramat S
     10. Perez-Fornos A
     11. van de Berg R

     (2020) Restoring the high-frequency dynamic visual acuity with a vestibular implant prototype in humans

     Audiology & Neuro-Otology 25:91–95.

     https://doi.org/10.1159/000503677

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Steinhardt CR
     2. Fridman GY

     (2021) Direct current effects on afferent and hair cell to elicit natural firing patterns

     iScience 24:102205.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102205

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. Preprint

     1. Steinhardt CR
     2. Mitchell DE
     3. Cullen KE
     4. Fridman GY

     (2022) Pulsatile electrical stimulation creates predictable, correctable disruptions in neural firing

     bioRxiv.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.18.456731

     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Stephan T
     2. Deutschländer A
     3. Nolte A
     4. Schneider E
     5. Wiesmann M
     6. Brandt T
     7. Dieterich M

     (2005) Functional MRI of galvanic vestibular stimulation with alternating currents at different frequencies

     NeuroImage 26:721–732.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.049

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Stultiens JJA
     2. Lewis RF
     3. Phillips JO
     4. Boutabla A
     5. Della Santina CC
     6. Glueckert R
     7. van de Berg R

     (2023) The next challenges of vestibular implantation in humans

     Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 24:401–412.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-023-00906-1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Sun DQ
     2. Ward BK
     3. Semenov YR
     4. Carey JP
     5. Della Santina CC

     (2014) Bilateral vestibular deficiency: quality of life and economic implications

     JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck Surgery 140:527–534.

     https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2014.490

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Suthakar K
     2. Liberman MC

     (2021) Auditory-nerve responses in mice with noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy

     Journal of Neurophysiology 126:2027–2038.

     https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00342.2021

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Suzuki JI
     2. Cohen B

     (1964) Head, eye, body and limb movements from semicircular canal nerves

     Experimental Neurology 10:393–405.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4886(64)90031-7

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Thompson LA
     2. Haburcakova C
     3. Lewis RF

     (2016) Vestibular ablation and a semicircular canal prosthesis affect postural stability during head turns

     Experimental Brain Research 234:3245–3257.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4722-5

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. van de Berg R
     2. Ramos A
     3. van Rompaey V
     4. Bisdorff A
     5. Perez-Fornos A
     6. Rubinstein JT
     7. Phillips JO
     8. Strupp M
     9. Della Santina CC
     10. Guinand N

     (2020) The vestibular implant: Opinion statement on implantation criteria for research

     Journal of Vestibular Research 30:213–223.

     https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-200701

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. van Stiphout L
     2. Lucieer F
     3. Guinand N
     4. Pérez Fornos A
     5. van de Berg M
     6. Van Rompaey V
     7. Widdershoven J
     8. Kingma H
     9. Joore M
     10. van de Berg R

     (2022) Bilateral vestibulopathy patients’ perspectives on vestibular implant treatment: a qualitative study

     Journal of Neurology 269:5249–5257.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-021-10920-z

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. van Wieringen A
     2. Macherey O
     3. Carlyon RP
     4. Deeks JM
     5. Wouters J

     (2008) Alternative pulse shapes in electrical hearing

     Hearing Research 242:154–163.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2008.03.005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Wall C
     2. Merfeld DM
     3. Rauch SD
     4. Black FO

     (2003) Vestibular prostheses: The engineering and biomedical issues

     Journal of Vestibular Research 12:95–113.

     https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-2003-122-305

     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Ward BK
     2. Agrawal Y
     3. Hoffman HJ
     4. Carey JP
     5. Della Santina CC

     (2013) Prevalence and impact of bilateral vestibular hypofunction: results from the 2008 US National Health Interview Survey

     JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck Surgery 139:803–810.

     https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2013.3913

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Webster M
     2. Webster DB

     (1981) Spiral ganglion neuron loss following organ of Corti loss: a quantitative study

     Brain Research 212:17–30.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(81)90028-7

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Whitney SL
     2. Alghwiri AA
     3. Alghadir A

     (2016) An overview of vestibular rehabilitation

     Clinical Neurology 137:187–205.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63437-5.00013-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Wiboonsaksakul KP
     2. Roberts DC
     3. Della Santina CC
     4. Cullen KE

     (2022) A prosthesis utilizing natural vestibular encoding strategies improves sensorimotor performance in monkeys

     PLOS Biology 20:e3001798.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001798

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Wiboonsaksakul KP
     2. Della Santina CC
     3. Cullen KE

     (2023) Prosthetic stimulation of the vestibular nerve can evoke robust eye and head movements despite prior labyrinthectomy

     Otology & Neurotology 44:1038–1044.

     https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004007

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Wu JS
     2. Young ED
     3. Glowatzki E

     (2016) Maturation of spontaneous firing properties after hearing onset in rat auditory nerve fibers: spontaneous rates, refractoriness, and interfiber correlations

     The Journal of Neuroscience 36:10584–10597.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1187-16.2016

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Yu XJ
     2. Thomassen JS
     3. Dickman JD
     4. Newlands SD
     5. Angelaki DE

     (2014) Long-term deficits in motion detection thresholds and spike count variability after unilateral vestibular lesion

     Journal of Neurophysiology 112:870–889.

     https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00280.2014

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Zwergal A
     2. Schlichtiger J
     3. Xiong G
     4. Beck R
     5. Günther L
     6. Schniepp R
     7. Schöberl F
     8. Jahn K
     9. Brandt T
     10. Strupp M
     11. Bartenstein P
     12. Dieterich M
     13. Dutia MB
     14. La Fougère C

     (2016) Sequential [18F]FDG µPET whole-brain imaging of central vestibular compensation: a model of deafferentation-induced brain plasticity

     Brain Structure and Function 221:159–170.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0899-1

     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Zwergal A
     2. Grabova D
     3. Schöberl F

     (2024) Vestibular contribution to spatial orientation and navigation

     Current Opinion in Neurology 37:52–58.

     https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000001230

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Kantapon Pum Wiboonsaksakul

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
   2. Kavli Neuroscience Discovery Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Olivia ME Leavitt Brown

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5468-9718

2. Olivia ME Leavitt Brown

   Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Kantapon Pum Wiboonsaksakul

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2932-1249

3. Kathleen E Cullen

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
   2. Kavli Neuroscience Discovery Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
   3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
   4. Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States

   Contribution

   Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   kathleen.cullen@jhu.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9348-0933

• 2

  downloads

• 0

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.