This study measured differences in optokinetic responses (sitting, standing, with and without a static visual target) in three groups of people: those classified as having unilateral vestibular loss (n=10), unilateral loss with visual vertigo (n=8) and a control group (n=10). In the abstract the authors have highlighted the differences between the visual vertigo group and the control group and used this to argue that visual dependency should be considered in vestibular rehabilitation. While I concur with this broad conclusion, further reading of the paper reveals little difference between the two groups with vestibular loss. They both differ from the control group on some of the test measures. It is therefore less clear what this paper is saying about visual vertigo as a separate ‘special case’ in addition to unilateral vestibular loss. The way the results are reported in the abstract represents potential reporting bias on the part of the authors and not a dispassionate presentation of the test findings. The title perhaps conveys the content more accurately than the abstract.