This study investigated how auditory stimuli and optokinetic stimulation modulate functional Head Impulse Test (fHIT) correct response rate (CR%) across semicircular canals (SCCs) and the associated cognitive load in healthy adults. Fifty participants (20–57 years) completed repeated‐measures fHIT under four conditions: silence, music, white noise, and optokinetic stimulation. The CR% from all SCCs were recorded and workload was assessed with the NASA Task Load Index (NASA‐TLX). Optokinetic stimulation produced the most significant CR% decrement (e.g., right lateral 90 vs. 100 in silence; p <0.001) and the highest workload (median NASA‐TLX = 50). Auditory conditions produced minimal CR% changes. Across conditions, lateral SCCs were less affected than vertical SCCs by sensory and cognitive interference. Visual–vestibular conflict markedly reduced CR%, whereas auditory effects appeared indirect and attention mediated. These findings provide normative benchmarks for multisensory fHIT assessment.
{"title":"The Effect of Different Auditory Stimuli and Optokinetic Stimuli on Vestibulo‐Ocular Reflex Function","authors":"Hanifi Korkmaz, İpek Balikci Cicek","doi":"10.1111/nyas.70131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.70131","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigated how auditory stimuli and optokinetic stimulation modulate functional Head Impulse Test (fHIT) correct response rate (CR%) across semicircular canals (SCCs) and the associated cognitive load in healthy adults. Fifty participants (20–57 years) completed repeated‐measures fHIT under four conditions: silence, music, white noise, and optokinetic stimulation. The CR% from all SCCs were recorded and workload was assessed with the NASA Task Load Index (NASA‐TLX). Optokinetic stimulation produced the most significant CR% decrement (e.g., right lateral 90 vs. 100 in silence; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> <0.001) and the highest workload (median NASA‐TLX = 50). Auditory conditions produced minimal CR% changes. Across conditions, lateral SCCs were less affected than vertical SCCs by sensory and cognitive interference. Visual–vestibular conflict markedly reduced CR%, whereas auditory effects appeared indirect and attention mediated. These findings provide normative benchmarks for multisensory fHIT assessment.","PeriodicalId":8250,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145567916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Patrick T. Stillson, Brent B. Crow, William R. Budnick, Sophia I. Passy
Most human pathogens are zoonotic, transmitted from vertebrate hosts to humans. However, it is still unclear how the topology of host co-occurrence networks may contribute to disease transmission. To address this uncertainty, we examined the host co-occurrence networks of 22 zoonotic pathogens from six continents (70 networks). First, we distinguished two major gradients of variability in host network topology—size (numbers of nodes and edges) and connectance/modularity. Larger networks with high connectance but low modularity have a greater potential for zoonotic disease transmission. These networks encompassed the hosts of 10 pathogens that cause emerging, re-emerging, and/or genetically diversifying diseases: St. Louis encephalitis virus, influenza A virus, West Nile virus, Toxoplasma gondii, Eastern equine encephalitis virus, Avian orthoavulavirus 1, Japanese encephalitis virus, Usutu virus, Sindbis virus, and Coxiella burnetii. Second, we identified the top 87 hosts with the most connections to other hosts across networks, for example, Columba livia (rock pigeon), Passer domesticus (house sparrow), Hirundo rustica (barn swallow), Sturnus vulgaris (European starling), Anas platyrhynchos (mallard), and Gallinula chloropus (common moorhen). These species were highly connected in 7–27 networks of 2–11 pathogens. Notably, 50 of the 87 hosts were migratory, urban, or semi-urban, highlighting the risk of zoonotic spread in developed areas.
{"title":"Zoonotic Disease Transmission May Be Linked to Host Co-Occurrence Network Topology","authors":"Patrick T. Stillson, Brent B. Crow, William R. Budnick, Sophia I. Passy","doi":"10.1111/nyas.70095","DOIUrl":"10.1111/nyas.70095","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Most human pathogens are zoonotic, transmitted from vertebrate hosts to humans. However, it is still unclear how the topology of host co-occurrence networks may contribute to disease transmission. To address this uncertainty, we examined the host co-occurrence networks of 22 zoonotic pathogens from six continents (70 networks). First, we distinguished two major gradients of variability in host network topology—size (numbers of nodes and edges) and connectance/modularity. Larger networks with high connectance but low modularity have a greater potential for zoonotic disease transmission. These networks encompassed the hosts of 10 pathogens that cause emerging, re-emerging, and/or genetically diversifying diseases: St. Louis encephalitis virus, influenza A virus, West Nile virus, <i>Toxoplasma gondii</i>, Eastern equine encephalitis virus, Avian orthoavulavirus 1, Japanese encephalitis virus, Usutu virus, Sindbis virus, and <i>Coxiella burnetii</i>. Second, we identified the top 87 hosts with the most connections to other hosts across networks, for example, <i>Columba livia</i> (rock pigeon), <i>Passer domesticus</i> (house sparrow), <i>Hirundo rustica</i> (barn swallow), <i>Sturnus vulgaris</i> (European starling), <i>Anas platyrhynchos</i> (mallard), and <i>Gallinula chloropus</i> (common moorhen). These species were highly connected in 7–27 networks of 2–11 pathogens. Notably, 50 of the 87 hosts were migratory, urban, or semi-urban, highlighting the risk of zoonotic spread in developed areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":8250,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","volume":"1554 1","pages":"110-120"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.70095","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145535876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}