Roll-Dependent Modulation of the Subjective Visual Vertical: Contributions of Head- and Trunk-Based Signals

Precision and accuracy of the subjective visual vertical (SVV) modulate in the roll plane. At large roll angles, systematic SVV errors are biased toward the subject's body-longitudinal axis and SVV precision is decreased. To explain this, SVV models typically implement a bias signal, or a prior, in a head-fixed reference frame and assume the sensory input to be optimally tuned along the head-longitudinal axis. We tested the pattern of SVV adjustments both in terms of accuracy and precision in experiments in which the head and the trunk reference frames were not aligned. Twelve subjects were placed on a turntable with the head rolled about 28° counterclockwise relative to the trunk by lateral tilt of the neck to dissociate the orientation of head- and trunk-fixed sensors relative to gravity. Subjects were brought to various positions (roll of head- or trunk-longitudinal axis relative to gravity: 0°, ±75°) and aligned an arrow with perceived vertical. Both accuracy and precision of the SVV were significantly ( P < 0.05) better when the head-longitudinal axis was aligned with gravity. Comparing absolute SVV errors for clockwise and counterclockwise roll tilts, statistical analysis yielded no significant differences ( P > 0.05) when referenced relative to head upright, but differed significantly ( P < 0.001) when referenced relative to trunk upright. These findings indicate that the bias signal, which drives the SVV toward the subject's body-longitudinal axis, operates in a head-fixed reference frame. Further analysis of SVV precision supports the hypothesis that head-based graviceptive signals provide the predominant input for internal estimates of visual vertical.

Download Full-text

Contribution of Visual Input to the Subjective Visual Vertical During Prolonged Lateral Tilt Position

Journal of Neurology & Neurophysiology ◽

10.4172/2155-9562.1000103 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 01 (01) ◽

Author(s):

Fumiyuki Goto ◽

Tomoko Tsutumi ◽

Hironari Kobayashi ◽

Akira Saito ◽

Jin Kanzaki

Keyword(s):

Visual Input ◽

Subjective Visual Vertical ◽

Lateral Tilt ◽

Visual Vertical

Download Full-text

Differential Effects of Visual Feedback on Subjective Visual Vertical Accuracy and Precision

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0049311 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 7 (11) ◽

pp. e49311 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Daniel Bjasch ◽

Christopher J. Bockisch ◽

Dominik Straumann ◽

Alexander A. Tarnutzer

Keyword(s):

Visual Feedback ◽

Subjective Visual Vertical ◽

Differential Effects ◽

Accuracy And Precision ◽

Visual Vertical ◽

Vertical Accuracy

Download Full-text

Egocentric and allocentric alignment tasks are affected by otolith input

Journal of Neurophysiology ◽

10.1152/jn.00724.2010 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 107 (11) ◽

pp. 3095-3106 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Alexander A. Tarnutzer ◽

Christopher J. Bockisch ◽

Itsaso Olasagasti ◽

Dominik Straumann

Keyword(s):

Reference Frame ◽

Longitudinal Axis ◽

Line Orientation ◽

Roll Angle ◽

Frames Of Reference ◽

Gravity Vector ◽

Ocular Torsion ◽

Luminous Line ◽

Precision And Accuracy ◽

Head Roll

Gravicentric visual alignments become less precise when the head is roll-tilted relative to gravity, which is most likely due to decreasing otolith sensitivity. To align a luminous line with the perceived gravity vector (gravicentric task) or the perceived body-longitudinal axis (egocentric task), the roll orientation of the line on the retina and the torsional position of the eyes relative to the head must be integrated to obtain the line orientation relative to the head. Whether otolith input contributes to egocentric tasks and whether the modulation of variability is restricted to vision-dependent paradigms is unknown. In nine subjects we compared precision and accuracy of gravicentric and egocentric alignments in various roll positions (upright, 45°, and 75° right-ear down) using a luminous line (visual paradigm) in darkness. Trial-to-trial variability doubled for both egocentric and gravicentric alignments when roll-tilted. Two mechanisms might explain the roll-angle–dependent modulation in egocentric tasks: 1) Modulating variability in estimated ocular torsion, which reflects the roll-dependent precision of otolith signals, affects the precision of estimating the line orientation relative to the head; this hypothesis predicts that variability modulation is restricted to vision-dependent alignments. 2) Estimated body-longitudinal reflects the roll-dependent variability of perceived earth-vertical. Gravicentric cues are thereby integrated regardless of the task's reference frame. To test the two hypotheses the visual paradigm was repeated using a rod instead (haptic paradigm). As with the visual paradigm, precision significantly decreased with increasing head roll for both tasks. These findings propose that the CNS integrates input coded in a gravicentric frame to solve egocentric tasks. In analogy to gravicentric tasks, where trial-to-trial variability is mainly influenced by the properties of the otolith afferents, egocentric tasks may also integrate otolith input. Such a shared mechanism for both paradigms and frames of reference is supported by the significantly correlated trial-to-trial variabilities.

Download Full-text

Effects of galvanic vestibular stimulation on subjective visual vertical and static eye deviation

Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology ◽

10.1016/s0013-4694(97)88208-2 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 103 (1) ◽

pp. 67

Author(s):

R Zink

Keyword(s):

Vestibular Stimulation ◽

Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation ◽

Subjective Visual Vertical ◽

Visual Vertical

Download Full-text

Allocentric to Egocentric Spatial Switching: Impairment in aMCI and Alzheimer's Disease Patients?

Current Alzheimer Research ◽

10.2174/1567205014666171030114821 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 15 (3) ◽

pp. 229-236 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Gennaro Ruggiero ◽

Alessandro Iavarone ◽

Tina Iachini

Keyword(s):

Alzheimer’S Disease ◽

Alzheimer's Disease ◽

Reference Frame ◽

Reference Frames ◽

Memory Task ◽

Spatial Representations ◽

The Novel ◽

Spatial Memory Task ◽

Switching Condition ◽

Normal Controls

Objective: Deficits in egocentric (subject-to-object) and allocentric (object-to-object) spatial representations, with a mainly allocentric impairment, characterize the first stages of the Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods: To identify early cognitive signs of AD conversion, some studies focused on amnestic-Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI) by reporting alterations in both reference frames, especially the allocentric ones. However, spatial environments in which we move need the cooperation of both reference frames. Such cooperating processes imply that we constantly switch from allocentric to egocentric frames and vice versa. This raises the question of whether alterations of switching abilities might also characterize an early cognitive marker of AD, potentially suitable to detect the conversion from aMCI to dementia. Here, we compared AD and aMCI patients with Normal Controls (NC) on the Ego-Allo- Switching spatial memory task. The task assessed the capacity to use switching (Ego-Allo, Allo-Ego) and non-switching (Ego-Ego, Allo-Allo) verbal judgments about relative distances between memorized stimuli. Results: The novel finding of this study is the neat impairment shown by aMCI and AD in switching from allocentric to egocentric reference frames. Interestingly, in aMCI when the first reference frame was egocentric, the allocentric deficit appeared attenuated. Conclusion: This led us to conclude that allocentric deficits are not always clinically detectable in aMCI since the impairments could be masked when the first reference frame was body-centred. Alongside, AD and aMCI also revealed allocentric deficits in the non-switching condition. These findings suggest that switching alterations would emerge from impairments in hippocampal and posteromedial areas and from concurrent dysregulations in the locus coeruleus-noradrenaline system or pre-frontal cortex.

Download Full-text

Reference frames in spatial communication for navigation and sports: an empirical study in ultimate frisbee players

Cognitive Research Principles and Implications ◽

10.1186/s41235-020-00254-1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Steven M. Weisberg ◽

Anjan Chatterjee

Keyword(s):

Reference Frame ◽

Reference Frames ◽

Spatial Information ◽

Spatial Reference ◽

Spatial Reference Frames ◽

The North ◽

Communication Task ◽

Spatial Communication ◽

Spatial Domains ◽

Ultimate Frisbee

Abstract Background Reference frames ground spatial communication by mapping ambiguous language (for example, navigation: “to the left”) to properties of the speaker (using a Relative reference frame: “to my left”) or the world (Absolute reference frame: “to the north”). People’s preferences for reference frame vary depending on factors like their culture, the specific task in which they are engaged, and differences among individuals. Although most people are proficient with both reference frames, it is unknown whether preference for reference frames is stable within people or varies based on the specific spatial domain. These alternatives are difficult to adjudicate because navigation is one of few spatial domains that can be naturally solved using multiple reference frames. That is, while spatial navigation directions can be specified using Absolute or Relative reference frames (“go north” vs “go left”), other spatial domains predominantly use Relative reference frames. Here, we used two domains to test the stability of reference frame preference: one based on navigating a four-way intersection; and the other based on the sport of ultimate frisbee. We recruited 58 ultimate frisbee players to complete an online experiment. We measured reaction time and accuracy while participants solved spatial problems in each domain using verbal prompts containing either Relative or Absolute reference frames. Details of the task in both domains were kept as similar as possible while remaining ecologically plausible so that reference frame preference could emerge. Results We pre-registered a prediction that participants would be faster using their preferred reference frame type and that this advantage would correlate across domains; we did not find such a correlation. Instead, the data reveal that people use distinct reference frames in each domain. Conclusion This experiment reveals that spatial reference frame types are not stable and may be differentially suited to specific domains. This finding has broad implications for communicating spatial information by offering an important consideration for how spatial reference frames are used in communication: task constraints may affect reference frame choice as much as individual factors or culture.

Download Full-text