Clinical reports have shown a range Entinostat solubility dmso of effects of vestibular stimulation on somatic sensory systems. Recently, it has been demonstrated that left cold CVS interacts not only with tactile perception (Vallar et al., 1990, 1993) but also with chronic pain in brain-damaged patients (Ramachandran et al., 2007; McGeoch et al., 2008), and with higher-order body representation

(Bisiach et al., 1991). However, to our knowledge, no clinical study has studied effects of vestibular stimulation on diverse aspects of somatic processing in the same individuals. Here we extend previous clinical findings to healthy volunteers, and show that vestibular inputs have widespread functional effects on different somatosensory submodalities. Because CVS has strong effects on spatial attention, particularly in right brain-damaged patients (Rubens, 1985), many previous clinical studies interpreted effects of CVS on tactile perception in terms of general arousal or shifts of supramodal attention towards the side of the space contralateral to the vestibular organs stimulated (Vallar et al., 1990, 1993). However, several lines of evidence suggest that our learn more data may reflect a direct vestibular-somatosensory interaction, and not just indirect

effects mediated by attention. First, some clinical reports demonstrated Depsipeptide chemical structure an impairment of the VOR with reduced leftward slow-phase and rightward fast-phase in neglect patients (Doricchi et al., 2002; Ventre-Dominey et al., 2003). These results highlight the inter-relation between eye movements, attention, and the vestibular system. Oculomotor effects of vestibular stimulation suggest a direct influence of vestibular signals in the neural activity of brain-damaged areas in the right hemisphere (Ventre-Dominey et al., 2003). Moreover, evidence from healthy

volunteers found no modulation of covert visuo-spatial attention following vestibular stimulation (Rorden et al., 2001). Additionally, CVS selectively affected somatosensory detection but not visual detection in a previous study (Ferrè et al., 2011). Finally, neuroanatomical overlap between vestibular and somatosensory cortical projections is widespread, and not confined to ‘attentional’ brain areas. The present results provide further evidence for a direct vestibular-somatosensory interaction, in addition to any attentional aspect. Our results cannot easily be reconciled with the attentional interpretation of CVS derived from patient studies. First we found that vestibular modulation of both touch and pain was bilateral, and not unilateral as a spatial attentional account would predict.