SCC lesion patterns
Table shows the results of head impulse and caloric testing for each patient. One patient (#2) opted not to receive head impulse testing because of severe neck pain. In the remaining 16 patients, quantitative head impulse testing showed reduced gains for at least one horizontal canal (HC). Seven patients (44%) showed the pattern of a so-called superior vestibular neuropathy, with the HC and anterior canal (AC) affected but the posterior canal spared, and seven (44%) had a complete vestibulopathy with all SCCs affected. Two patients (13%) had an isolated HC defect only. The vertical canals were not tested in one patient (#4). In 11 patients, the gain reduction of the HC was unilateral. In five patients, HC gain reduction was bilateral, but in all patients the HC gains were reduced asymmetrically with the gain on the weaker side at least 20% decreased relative to the other side. Spontaneous nystagmus was consistently beating towards the side with the higher gain.
Caloric irrigation revealed a vestibular tone asymmetry in all patients tested. Five patients could not be tested in the initial phase, two (#2 and #3) because of an acute hemorrhagic otitis media and one (#11) because of a traumatic perilymphatic fistula. The latter was asymptomatic the day after closure of the perilymphatic fistula on the side with the weaker gain. Patient 2 had neither an initial head impulse nor caloric testing but was tested 4 weeks later by caloric irrigation showing a canal paresis factor of 50%. Two patients refused caloric testing.
In summary, 12 patients had an AVTA with a relative hypofunction on the left and 5 on the right side. Seven patients had a vestibular loss with affection of all three SCCs, seven showed the pattern of a superior vestibular neuritis (HC and AC affected), and two patients had a lesion of the lateral SCC canal only.
Drift direction of nystagmus slow phase in relation to the lesion pattern
The horizontal drift component (the slow-phase direction) was always towards the weaker HC according to head impulse and caloric testing, as expected. Horizontal drift velocity at gaze straight ahead ranged from −1 to −14°/s with a mean of −6.5°/s. All patients except one had a downward slow-phase drift. Vertical drift velocities ranged from 0.2 to −6°/s (mean: −2.2°/s). The patient with the upward slow-phase drift (#8) had the weakest vertical drift velocity. Torsional SPV was between 0.5 and 20°/s, and the direction was always counter-clockwise. Figure shows the axis of rotation of the nystagmus slow phase for straight-ahead gaze for each patient normalized by the velocity magnitude. The axes thus show nystagmus direction. Also shown are the ocular motor rotation axes associated with excitatory stimulation of each SCC, which were derived according to the anatomical measurements of Della Santina et al. (
2005). The nystagmus rotation axes cluster near the excitatory direction of the right horizontal SCC or opposite the direction of the weaker, left horizontal SCC. The axes also deviate slightly to oppose the left anterior SCC.
Dependence of slow-phase drift velocity on gaze position
Figure shows representative data from three patients. The top panel shows eye position as a patient (#9) followed the flashing target from 25° left to 25° right. The right-beating nystagmus when looking left is weaker then when looking to the right, that is, the nystagmus is stronger in the direction of the fast phase in accord with AL. Figure A also shows nystagmus in both vertical and torsional eye position. In Figure B, the median eye velocity of each slow phase is shown, as a function of horizontal eye position, for the same patient. This patient shows a linear dependence of horizontal velocity on horizontal gaze position, with a peak velocity of about −12°/s when looking 25° right, which declined to about −2°/s when looking 25° left. In our patients, we never observed a reversal of the direction of horizontal eye velocity, as reported by Hess (
1983), although this might be because we only measured to 25° eccentricity. In addition, Figure B shows the vertical and torsional velocity of the slow phases, which also show a clear linear dependence of eye velocity on horizontal gaze position. Figure C and D show different patterns of results from two different patients. In Figure C (#6), while eye velocity is apparent in all three directions, there is very little change in velocity with horizontal gaze position. The patient in Figure D (#15) showed a constant change in eye velocity when looking left, although in rightward gaze there is less of a change in eye velocity.
As represented in Figure , the patients typically showed downward and counterclockwise drift (upper pole rolls towards patients left side), in addition to the leftward horizontal component. These components are expected from a vestibular disturbance from the left HC with or without involvement of the anterior SCC as explained above. We used linear regression to characterize the change in horizontal, vertical, torsional, and total velocity on horizontal eye position (see Fig. ). Fifteen of 17 patients showed a significant change in horizontal velocity with horizontal position that was consistent with AL (all ps

<

0.05). The average slope of the linear fits was −0.1°/s per degree of horizontal position, and the average bias (intercept), which indicates horizontal eye velocity at gaze straight ahead, was −6.5°/s. Both the average slope and bias were significantly different from zero (
t tests: slope
t
=

7.8,
p
<

0.01; bias
t
=

4.8°/s,
p
<

0.01). The average slope of −0.1 corresponds to a NI time constant of 10 s (time constant

=

1/slope), whereas normal values are measured between 15 and 70 s (Becker and Klein
1973; Hess et al.
1985). Most patients also showed significant changes in vertical (16 of 17) and torsional (13 of 17) velocity with horizontal position. For vertical velocity, the average bias was −2.2 (
t
=

5.2,
p
<

0.01) and the average slope was −0.043 (
t
=

3.0;
p
<

0.01). For torsional velocity, the average bias was −3.5 (
t
=

3.0,
p
<

0.01) and the average slope was −0.034 (
t
=

2.3;
p
<

0.05). The average slopes of the change in torsional, vertical, and horizontal eye velocity were such that, in general, eye velocity in all components decreased when the patients looked to the left.
If the change in eye velocity with gaze position is an adaptive response to the vestibular induced nystagmus, one would expect the strength of the effect to depend on the magnitude of the nystagmus. Figure shows these relationships, taking the bias of the fits of total velocity vs. gaze position (the “total bias”) as an estimate of the vestibular contribution to the nystagmus. The correlation between the horizontal slope and the bias was significant (Spearman’s rho

=

0.5;
t
=

2.3;
p
<

0.05). The correlation between vertical slope and total bias was also significant, (rho

=

0.57;
t
=

2.7;
p
<

0.05), whereas the torsional slope was not (rho

=

0.16;
t
=

0.62;
p
>

0.5). The slope for total eye velocity was significantly correlated with the total bias (rho

=

0.53;
t
=

2.4;
p
<

0.05).
No hysteresis
The “jump” paradigm was designed to find hysteresis in eye velocity by having the patients alternate gaze between +25° and −25°. We performed this analysis on the first eight patients and found no difference in either the slope or bias for horizontal, vertical, torsional, or total eye velocity compared to our standard protocol. (Horizontal differences: bias

=

0.05°/s, paired
t
=

0.1,
p
=

0.9; slope

=

−0.02,
t
=

0.88;
p
<

0.5; all other components showed similarly small, statistically insignificant differences.) Because we did not find any hysteresis, we stopped testing for hysteresis to reduce the test duration.
Drift direction
For our patients with a relative left-hypofunction, eye drift for gaze straight ahead was left, down, and counterclockwise. However, the direction could change depending upon horizontal gaze position. Figure A, B shows an example of the direction of drift in the horizontal/vertical and horizontal/torsional planes. In this patient (#11), the downward component seen in right gaze (the fast-phase direction) disappears (and may even change to an upward component) in left gaze (Fig. A). Figure C shows the drift orientation in the same patient as a function of horizontal eye position. Zero-orientation indicates up (for the horizontal/vertical plane) and clockwise (for the horizontal/torsional plane), respectively, and 90° indicates left. Best fit lines to this data are shown. The vertical component becomes relatively smaller in the slow-phase direction (positive slope), or, in other words, the dependence of velocity on horizontal eye position is relatively stronger for vertical compared to horizontal velocity. The torsional component tends to be relatively larger in left gaze, and thus, the slope of the orientation vs. horizontal position is negative. The histograms in Figure D show the change in orientation of the slow-phase drift, that is, the slopes of the best fit lines of orientation vs. horizontal position such as those in Figure C. The maximum slope was about 1.4, which means that the nystagmus of this patient changed its direction by 14 degrees when the patient changed horizontal gaze position by 10 degrees.
In most patients, drift direction varied significantly with horizontal gaze position. We computed linear fits of the drift direction orientation vs. horizontal eye position, and in the horizontal–vertical plane, 14 of 17 (82%) patients showed a significant change in drift direction. In the horizontal–torsional plane, 10 of 17 patients (59%) showed a significant change in drift direction with horizontal eye position. Only two patients (12%) showed no change in drift direction in both planes. Note that these were not identical with the two patients who showed no AL in the horizontal velocity component.
If AL modulates drift velocity, the direction of drift will remain constant if and only if the change in velocity is proportional in all components. In Figure A, the vertical component changes more, proportionally, than the horizontal component, leading to a change in drift direction. In Figure B, the changes in horizontal and torsional component are closer, so a change in the horizontal–torsional difference is less obvious. This is clearer in Figure C, where the slope of the best-fit horizontal–vertical line is greater than the horizontal–torsional line.
Despite significant changes of drift direction in individual patients, there was no consistent pattern of direction change. Thus, for the whole group, the average change in direction (the slope of best fit line for direction and gaze position) was not significantly different from zero for both the horizontal–vertical plane (mean

=

0.075;
t
=

0.6;
p
=

0.5) and the horizontal–torsional plane (mean

=

−0.1;
t
=

1.9;
p
<

0.08) (Fig. D).
Gaze dependent changes in the slope of velocity vs. position
We frequently observed that the change of eye velocity with eye position was not constant but could be different depending upon whether the patient was looking to the left or to the right. Figure B and C provide two such examples. We fit separate lines to eye velocity depending upon whether the patient was looking to the left or right of straight ahead. Figure A (#9) shows an example where the slopes of the two lines were very similar. In Figure B (#2), when the patient looked in the positive direction, where eye velocity was higher, there was little change in velocity with position, in contrast to the negative direction. Figure C (#6) shows a more extreme example, where the change in velocity reverses direction. Averaged over all patients, the slope for gaze in the slow-phase direction was −0.14, whereas the slope for gaze in the fast-phase direction was −0.04, a difference that was significant (paired
t
=

2.6,
p
<

0.05). We found that 15 of 17 patients (88%) showed a significant decrease in horizontal velocity with horizontal position when looking in the slow-phase direction. In the fast-phase direction, nine patients showed a significant negative slope, three (numbers 4, 6, and 13) showed a significant positive slope, and five (numbers 2, 3, 12, 15, and 16) showed a slope that was not significantly different from 0. Figure D shows the parameters of the linear fits of the horizontal slopes vs. the total eye velocity. When looking left (in the slow-phase direction), the slope of the best-fit line increases with the total bias (slope

=

0.014;
R2
=

0.8;
p
<

0.01), whereas when looking to the right, the slope does not consistently vary with the total bias (slope

=

−0.002,
R2
=

0.004,
p
>

0.7). We also calculated Spearman’s rho, a nonparametric correlation measure, for velocity axes vs. the total eye velocity. When looking in the slow-phase direction, horizontal, vertical, and total velocity components showed significant correlations with the total bias (all ps

<

0.01), but the change in torsional velocity with horizontal eye position was not correlated with the total bias (
p
>

0.3). When looking in the fast-phase direction, all correlations were not significant (all
p values

>

0.18).
Finally, we analyzed whether the direction of the slow phase varied with eye position, similar to the analysis in Figure , when looking to the left, where we observed stronger AL. The average change in direction (the slope of best fit line for direction and gaze position) was not significantly different from zero for both the horizontal–vertical direction (mean

=

−0.08;
t
=

0.5;
p
>

0.6) and the horizontal–torsional direction (mean

=

−0.1;
t
=

1.3;
p
>

0.1).