Differences between right versus left lateral body tilt in its effect on the visual and tactual perception of verticality

1978 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bauermeister
Keyword(s):  
Body Tilt ◽  
Tactual Perception ◽  
Lateral Body ◽  
Perception Of Verticality

scholarly journals Altered Visual and Proprioceptive Spatial Perception in Individuals with Parkinson’s Disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-112
Author(s):  
Gustavo José Luvizutto ◽  
Thanielle Souza Silva Brito ◽  
Eduardo de Moura Neto ◽  
Luciane Aparecida Pascucci Sande de Souza
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Spatial Perception ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Body Tilt ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Somatosensory Information ◽  
Perception Of Verticality

Difficulties in the integration of visual, vestibular, and somatosensory information in individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may alter perception of verticality. Accordingly, in this cross-sectional study, we analyzed PD patients’ ( n = 13) subjective visual vertical (SVV) and subjective haptic vertical (SHV) perceptions and compared them to those of healthy controls ( n = 14). We compared SVV and SHV findings among participants with PD, healthy controls, and cutoff points of normality based on prior research literature, using the parametric nonpaired t test (at p < .05) and Cohen’s d (at d > 0.8) to determine clinical relevance. We analyzed SVV with the bucket test and SHV with the rod rotations task in clockwise and counterclockwise directions. We calculated Pearson correlations to analyze the association between verticality tests and the most clinically affected body side. We calculated both the percentage of A-effect (expression of body tilt underestimation to the midline) and E-effect (expression of body tilt overestimation in the upright position). Individuals with PD showed greater variability in right SHV supination compared to the healthy control participants ( p = .002). There was greater clinical relevance in right (as opposed to left) SVV ( d = 0.83), right (as opposed to left) SHV pronation ( d = 0.91), and left (as opposed to right) SHV pronation ( d = 0.88). We observed a higher proportion of E-effect in individuals with PD. A significantly higher proportion of patients with PD, compared to patients in past literature, had right SHV pronation ( p = .001), left SHV pronation ( p = .023), right SHV supination ( p = .001), left SHV supination ( p = .046), and left SHV pronation ( p = .046). Thus, subjective visual and proprioceptive perception of verticality is altered in patients with PD, compared to individuals without PD.

Perception of the Visual Horizontal during Lateral Body Tilt: Right-Left Asymmetries

1978 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 715-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bauermeister
Keyword(s):  
Body Tilt ◽  
Linear Effect ◽  
Non Linear Effect ◽  
Lateral Body ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
The Right

Subjects, 55 males and 45 females, indicated by means of a luminescent rod the visual horizontal under conditions of lateral body tilt ranging from 10° to 90° to the right and to the left. There was a non-linear effect of the angle of tilt on the degree of deviation of apparent from objective horizontal. With small angles of tilt the apparent horizontal tended to deviate opposite to the direction of body tilt, with larger angles, in the direction of tilt. Uncertainty of judgment increased with increasing angles of tilt.

scholarly journals Multisensory Interactions in Head and Body Centered Perception of Verticality

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksander N. De Winkel ◽  
Ellen Edel ◽  
Riender Happee ◽  
Heinrich H. Bülthoff
Keyword(s):  
Force Plate ◽  
Head Tilt ◽  
Weighted Average ◽  
The Body ◽  
Body Tilt ◽  
Motion Platform ◽  
Postural Responses ◽  
Body Sensors ◽  
Multisensory Interactions ◽  
Perception Of Verticality

Percepts of verticality are thought to be constructed as a weighted average of multisensory inputs, but the observed weights differ considerably between studies. In the present study, we evaluate whether this can be explained by differences in how visual, somatosensory and proprioceptive cues contribute to representations of the Head In Space (HIS) and Body In Space (BIS). Participants (10) were standing on a force plate on top of a motion platform while wearing a visualization device that allowed us to artificially tilt their visual surroundings. They were presented with (in)congruent combinations of visual, platform, and head tilt, and performed Rod &amp; Frame Test (RFT) and Subjective Postural Vertical (SPV) tasks. We also recorded postural responses to evaluate the relation between perception and balance. The perception data shows that body tilt, head tilt, and visual tilt affect the HIS and BIS in both experimental tasks. For the RFT task, visual tilt induced considerable biases (≈ 10° for 36° visual tilt) in the direction of the vertical expressed in the visual scene; for the SPV task, participants also adjusted platform tilt to correct for illusory body tilt induced by the visual stimuli, but effects were much smaller (≈ 0.25°). Likewise, postural data from the SPV task indicate participants slightly shifted their weight to counteract visual tilt (0.3° for 36° visual tilt). The data reveal a striking dissociation of visual effects between the two tasks. We find that the data can be explained well using a model where percepts of the HIS and BIS are constructed from direct signals from head and body sensors, respectively, and indirect signals based on body and head signals but corrected for perceived neck tilt. These findings show that perception of the HIS and BIS derive from the same sensory signals, but see profoundly different weighting factors. We conclude that observations of different weightings between studies likely result from querying of distinct latent constructs referenced to the body or head in space.

Perceived Body Position under Lateral Body Tilt

1969 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Harvey Baker ◽  
Leonard Cirillo ◽  
Seymour Wapner
Keyword(s):  
Body Position ◽  
Body Tilt ◽  
Lateral Body

Method of Stimulus Presentation and Apparent Body Position under Lateral Body Tilt

1967 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Bauermeister ◽  
S. Wapner ◽  
H. Werner
Keyword(s):  
Reference System ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Body Schema ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Body Axis ◽  
Body Tilt ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Longitudinal Body Axis ◽  
Lateral Body ◽  
Method Of Constant Stimuli

Eighty Ss, 40 male and 40 female, indicated by means of a luminescent rod the location of their longitudinal body axis (apparent body position) under body tilt ranging from 90° left (counterclockwise), through upright, to 90° right (clockwise). The luminescent rod was presented by two psychophysical methods: (a) the method of limits and (b) the method of constant stimuli. Deviations of apparent from objective body position showed significant differences between the two methods. The results were interpreted in terms of an organismic theory of perception, utilizing the notion of a dynamic body schema as spatial reference system which was subject to modifications due to the method of stimulus presentation.

The Effect of Body Tilt on Tactual-Kinesthetic Perception of Verticality

1964 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bauermeister ◽  
Heinz Werner ◽  
Seymour Wapner
Keyword(s):  
Body Tilt ◽  
Perception Of Verticality ◽  
Kinesthetic Perception

Nature of the Transition Between Two Modes of External Space Perception in Tilted Subjects

2005 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. 3356-3369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald G. Kaptein ◽  
Jan A. M. Van Gisbergen
Keyword(s):  
Opposite Sign ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Space Perception ◽  
Body Tilt ◽  
Repeated Testing ◽  
Subjective Vertical ◽  
Inverted Position ◽  
Lateral Body ◽  
Visual Vertical ◽  
Response Modes

A striking feature of visual verticality estimates in the dark is undercompensation for lateral body tilt. Earlier studies and models suggest that this so-called Aubert (A) effect increases gradually to around 130° tilt and then decays smoothly on approaching the inverted position. By contrast, we recently found an abrupt transition toward errors of opposite sign (E effect) when body tilt exceeded 135°. The present study was undertaken to clarify the nature of this transition. We tested the subjective visual vertical in stationary roll-tilted human subjects using various rotation paradigms and testing methods. Cluster analysis identified two clearly separate response modes (A or E effect), present in all conditions, which dominated in different but overlapping tilt ranges. Within the overlap zone, the subjective vertical appeared bistable on repeated testing with responses in both categories. The tilt range where bistability occurred depended on the direction of the preceding rotation (hysteresis). The overlap zone shifted to a smaller tilt angle when testing was preceded by a rotation through the inverted position, compared with short opposite rotations from upright. We discuss the possibility that the A-E transition reflects a reference shift from compensating line settings for the head deviation from upright to basing them on the tilt deviation of the feet from upright. In this scenario, both the A and the E effect reflect tilt undercompensation. To explain the hysteresis and the bistability, we propose that the transition is triggered when perceived body tilt, a signal with known noise and hysteresis properties, crosses a fixed threshold.

Cervicogenic Headache: Electronystagmography, Perception of Verticality and Posturography In Patients Before and After C2-Blockade

Cephalalgia ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 285-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne Dieterich ◽  
Walter Pöllmann ◽  
Volker Pfaffenrath
Keyword(s):  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Cervicogenic Headache ◽  
Specific Pattern ◽  
Body Sway ◽  
Lateral Body ◽  
Small Influence ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Visual Vertical ◽  
Perception Of Verticality ◽  
Cervical Root

Fourteen patients with cervicogenic headache (9F, 5M) with a mean age of 42.8 (29–58) years were examined, before and within two hours after unilateral anaesthetic C2-blockades, clinically as well as by means of electronystagmography, subjective visual vertical test and posturography. After C2-blockade, patients exhibited a slight gait deviation to the injected side without eye movement disorder, dysmetria or ataxia. Although in two of nine patients there was a small influence on lateral body sway on posturography, no specific pattern of abnormalities in eye-head-body coordination could be found before or after C2-blockades. Thus, there is no clinical evidence for a significant reproducible influence of the second cervical root on oculomotor or cerebellar function in cervicogenic headache. These findings confirm earlier data in animal experiments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document