scholarly journals Head roll dependent variability of subjective visual vertical and ocular counterroll

2009 ◽  
Vol 195 (4) ◽  
pp. 621-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander A. Tarnutzer ◽  
Christopher J. Bockisch ◽  
Dominik Straumann
2009 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 1657-1671 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. A. Tarnutzer ◽  
C. Bockisch ◽  
D. Straumann ◽  
I. Olasagasti

The brain integrates sensory input from the otolith organs, the semicircular canals, and the somatosensory and visual systems to determine self-orientation relative to gravity. Only the otoliths directly sense the gravito-inertial force vector and therefore provide the major input for perceiving static head-roll relative to gravity, as measured by the subjective visual vertical (SVV). Intraindividual SVV variability increases with head roll, which suggests that the effectiveness of the otolith signal is roll-angle dependent. We asked whether SVV variability reflects the spatial distribution of the otolithic sensors and the otolith-derived acceleration estimate. Subjects were placed in different roll orientations (0–360°, 15° steps) and asked to align an arrow with perceived vertical. Variability was minimal in upright, increased with head-roll peaking around 120–135°, and decreased to intermediate values at 180°. Otolith-dependent variability was modeled by taking into consideration the nonuniform distribution of the otolith afferents and their nonlinear firing rate. The otolith-derived estimate was combined with an internal bias shifting the estimated gravity-vector toward the body-longitudinal. Assuming an efficient otolith estimator at all roll angles, peak variability of the model matched our data; however, modeled variability in upside-down and upright positions was very similar, which is at odds with our findings. By decreasing the effectiveness of the otolith estimator with increasing roll, simulated variability matched our experimental findings better. We suggest that modulations of SVV precision in the roll plane are related to the properties of the otolith sensors and to central computational mechanisms that are not optimally tuned for roll-angles distant from upright.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Chihiro Yagi ◽  
Yuka Morita ◽  
Meiko Kitazawa ◽  
Yoriko Nonomura ◽  
Tatsuya Yamagishi ◽  
...  

Neurology ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 82 (22) ◽  
pp. 1968-1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.-H. Yang ◽  
S.-Y. Oh ◽  
K. Kwak ◽  
J.-M. Lee ◽  
B.-S. Shin ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha Funabashi ◽  
Natya N.L. Silva ◽  
Luciana M. Watanabe ◽  
Taiza E.G Santos-Pontelli ◽  
José Fernando Colafêmina ◽  
...  

Subjective visual vertical (SVV) evaluates the individual's capacity to determine the vertical orientation. Using a neck brace (NB) allow volunteers' heads fixation to reduce cephalic tilt during the exam, preventing compensatory ocular torsion and erroneous influence on SVV result. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the influence of somatosensory inputs caused by a NB on the SVV. METHOD: Thirty healthy volunteers performed static and dynamic SVV: six measures with and six without the NB. RESULTS: The mean values for static SVV were -0.075º±1.15º without NB and -0.372º±1.21º with NB. For dynamic SVV in clockwise direction were 1.73º±2.31º without NB and 1.53º±1.80º with NB. For dynamic SVV in counterclockwise direction was -1.50º±2.44º without NB and -1.11º±2.46º with NB. Differences between measurements with and without the NB were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although the neck has many sensory receptors, the use of a NB does not provide sufficient afferent input to change healthy subjects' perception of visual verticality.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. e1757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brooke N. Klatt ◽  
Patrick J. Sparto ◽  
Lauren Terhorst ◽  
Stanley Winser ◽  
Rock Heyman ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 732-747 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Scott Murdison ◽  
Chanel A. Paré-Bingley ◽  
Gunnar Blohm

To compute spatially correct smooth pursuit eye movements, the brain uses both retinal motion and extraretinal signals about the eyes and head in space ( Blohm and Lefèvre 2010 ). However, when smooth eye movements rely solely on memorized target velocity, such as during anticipatory pursuit, it is unknown if this velocity memory also accounts for extraretinal information, such as head roll and ocular torsion. To answer this question, we used a novel behavioral updating paradigm in which participants pursued a repetitive, spatially constant fixation-gap-ramp stimulus in series of five trials. During the first four trials, participants' heads were rolled toward one shoulder, inducing ocular counterroll (OCR). With each repetition, participants increased their anticipatory pursuit gain, indicating a robust encoding of velocity memory. On the fifth trial, they rolled their heads to the opposite shoulder before pursuit, also inducing changes in ocular torsion. Consequently, for spatially accurate anticipatory pursuit, the velocity memory had to be updated across changes in head roll and ocular torsion. We tested how the velocity memory accounted for head roll and OCR by observing the effects of changes to these signals on anticipatory trajectories of the memory decoding (fifth) trials. We found that anticipatory pursuit was updated for changes in head roll; however, we observed no evidence of compensation for OCR, representing the absence of ocular torsion signals within the velocity memory. This indicated that the directional component of the memory must be coded retinally and updated to account for changes in head roll, but not OCR.


2009 ◽  
Vol 129 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masayuki Asai ◽  
Mitsuhiro Aoki ◽  
Hisamitsu Hayashi ◽  
Nansei Yamada ◽  
Keisuke Mizuta ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document