Body-Tilt and Visual Verticality Perception During Multiple Cycles of Roll Rotation

2008 ◽  
Vol 99 (5) ◽  
pp. 2264-2280 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.A.A. Vingerhoets ◽  
W. P. Medendorp ◽  
J.A.M. Van Gisbergen

To assess the effects of degrading canal cues for dynamic spatial orientation in human observers, we tested how judgments about visual-line orientation in space (subjective visual vertical task, SVV) and estimates of instantaneous body tilt (subjective body-tilt task, SBT) develop in the course of three cycles of constant-velocity roll rotation. These abilities were tested across the entire tilt range in separate experiments. For comparison, we also obtained SVV data during static roll tilt. We found that as tilt increased, dynamic SVV responses became strongly biased toward the head pole of the body axis (A-effect), as if body tilt was underestimated. However, on entering the range of near-inverse tilts, SVV responses adopted a bimodal pattern, alternating between A-effects (biased toward head-pole) and E-effects (biased toward feet-pole). Apart from an onset effect, this tilt-dependent pattern of systematic SVV errors repeated itself in subsequent rotation cycles with little sign of worsening performance. Static SVV responses were qualitatively similar and consistent with previous reports but showed smaller A-effects. By contrast, dynamic SBT errors were small and unimodal, indicating that errors in visual-verticality estimates were not caused by errors in body-tilt estimation. We discuss these results in terms of predictions from a canal-otolith interaction model extended with a leaky integrator and an egocentric bias mechanism. We conclude that the egocentric-bias mechanism becomes more manifest during constant velocity roll-rotation and that perceptual errors due to incorrect disambiguation of the otolith signal are small despite the decay of canal signals.

2004 ◽  
Vol 91 (5) ◽  
pp. 2205-2214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald G. Kaptein ◽  
Jan A. M. Van Gisbergen

Results of earlier spatial-orientation studies focusing on the sense of verticality have emphasized an intriguing paradox. Despite evidence that nearly veridical signals for gravicentric head orientation and egocentric visual stimulus orientation are available, roll-tilted subjects err in the direction of the long body axis when adjusting a visual line to vertical in darkness (Aubert effect). This has led to the suggestion that a central egocentric bias signal with fixed strength and direction acts to pull the perceived vertical to the subjects' zenith (M-model). In the present study, the subjective visual vertical (SVV) was tested in six human subjects, across the entire 360° range. For comparison, body-tilt estimates from four subjects where collected in a separate series of experiments. For absolute tilts up to ∼135°, SVV responses showed a gradually increasing Aubert effect that could not be attributed to errors in perceived body tilt but was nicely in line with the M-model. At larger absolute tilts, SVV errors abruptly reversed sign, now showing a pattern concordant with errors in body-tilt estimates but incompatible with the M-model. These results suggest that, in the normal working range, the perception of external space and the perception of body posture are based on different processing of body-tilt signals. Beyond this range, both spatial-orientation tasks seem to rely mainly on a common tilt signal.


2008 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 657-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika N. Lorincz ◽  
Bernhard J. M. Hess

We investigated in normal human subjects how semicircular canal and otolith signals interact in the estimation of the subjective visual vertical after constant velocity or constant acceleration roll tilt. In the constant velocity paradigm, subjects were rotated in darkness at ±60°/s for five complete cycles before being stopped in one of seven orientations ranging from 0 to ±90° (right/left ear down). In the constant acceleration paradigm, subjects were rotated with an acceleration of +30 or −30°/s2 to the same seven end positions between −90 and +90°, by way of passing once through the upside-down position. The subjective visual vertical was assessed by measuring the setting of a luminous line that appeared at different test delays after stop rotation in otherwise complete darkness. The data suggest that gravitational jerk signals generated by otolith–semicircular canal interactions and/or carried by phasic otolith signals are responsible for the observed transient bias in the estimation of the subjective visual vertical. This transient bias depended on both rotation and tilt direction after constant velocity rotations, but was almost abolished following constant acceleration rotations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (5) ◽  
pp. 1948-1958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan K. Ward ◽  
Christopher J. Bockisch ◽  
Nicoletta Caramia ◽  
Giovanni Bertolini ◽  
Alexander Andrea Tarnutzer

Accurate and precise estimates of direction of gravity are essential for spatial orientation. According to Bayesian theory, multisensory vestibular, visual, and proprioceptive input is centrally integrated in a weighted fashion based on the reliability of the component sensory signals. For otolithic input, a decreasing signal-to-noise ratio was demonstrated with increasing roll angle. We hypothesized that the weights of vestibular (otolithic) and extravestibular (visual/proprioceptive) sensors are roll-angle dependent and predicted an increased weight of extravestibular cues with increasing roll angle, potentially following the Bayesian hypothesis. To probe this concept, the subjective visual vertical (SVV) was assessed in different roll positions (≤ ± 120°, steps = 30°, n = 10) with/without presenting an optokinetic stimulus (velocity = ± 60°/s). The optokinetic stimulus biased the SVV toward the direction of stimulus rotation for roll angles ≥ ± 30° ( P < 0.005). Offsets grew from 3.9 ± 1.8° (upright) to 22.1 ± 11.8° (±120° roll tilt, P < 0.001). Trial-to-trial variability increased with roll angle, demonstrating a nonsignificant increase when providing optokinetic stimulation. Variability and optokinetic bias were correlated ( R2 = 0.71, slope = 0.71, 95% confidence interval = 0.57–0.86). An optimal-observer model combining an optokinetic bias with vestibular input reproduced measured errors closely. These findings support the hypothesis of a weighted multisensory integration when estimating direction of gravity with optokinetic stimulation. Visual input was weighted more when vestibular input became less reliable, i.e., at larger roll-tilt angles. However, according to Bayesian theory, the variability of combined cues is always lower than the variability of each source cue. If the observed increase in variability, although nonsignificant, is true, either it must depend on an additional source of variability, added after SVV computation, or it would conflict with the Bayesian hypothesis. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Applying a rotating optokinetic stimulus while recording the subjective visual vertical in different whole body roll angles, we noted the optokinetic-induced bias to correlate with the roll angle. These findings allow the hypothesis that the established optimal weighting of single-sensory cues depending on their reliability to estimate direction of gravity could be extended to a bias caused by visual self-motion stimuli.


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 ◽  
...  

1976 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 747-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Comalli ◽  
Stephanie Schmidt ◽  
Morton W. Altshuler

20 profoundly deaf and 20 normal hearing children from ages 10 to 13 were compared as to their ability to locate visually the position of apparent vertical and the apparent location of the longitudinal axis of the body under erect and 30° left and right body-tilt. Both deaf and normal hearing children were able accurately to locate a rod to the apparent visual vertical, but deaf children were significantly more accurate in aligning a rod to their apparent body-position than hearing children. This finding is discussed from both a learning view and from a hypothesis of developmental lag.


2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (6) ◽  
pp. 3110-3121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raquel C. Galvan-Garza ◽  
Torin K. Clark ◽  
David Sherwood ◽  
Ana Diaz-Artiles ◽  
Marissa Rosenberg ◽  
...  

Overestimation of roll tilt in hypergravity (“G-excess” illusion) has been demonstrated, but corresponding sustained hypogravic conditions are impossible to create in ground laboratories. In this article we describe the first systematic experimental evidence that in a hypogravity analog, humans underestimate roll tilt. We studied perception of self-roll tilt in nine subjects, who were supine while spun on a centrifuge to create a hypogravity analog. By varying the centrifuge rotation rate, we modulated the centripetal acceleration (GC) at the subject’s head location (0.5 or 1 GC) along the body axis. We measured orientation perception using a subjective visual vertical task in which subjects aligned an illuminated bar with their perceived centripetal acceleration direction during tilts (±11.5–28.5°). As hypothesized, based on the reduced utricular otolith shearing, subjects initially underestimated roll tilts in the 0.5 GC condition compared with the 1 GC condition (mean perceptual gain change = −0.27, P = 0.01). When visual feedback was given after each trial in 0.5 GC, subjects’ perceptual gain increased in approximately exponential fashion over time (time constant = 16 tilts or 13 min), and after 45 min, the perceptual gain was not significantly different from the 1 GC baseline (mean gain difference between 1 GC initial and 0.5 GC final = 0.16, P = 0.3). Thus humans modified their interpretation of sensory cues to more correctly report orientation during this hypogravity analog. Quantifying the acute orientation perceptual learning in such an altered gravity environment may have implications for human space exploration on the moon or Mars. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Humans systematically overestimate roll tilt in hypergravity. However, human perception of orientation in hypogravity has not been quantified across a range of tilt angles. Using a centrifuge to create a hypogravity centripetal acceleration environment, we found initial underestimation of roll tilt. Providing static visual feedback, perceptual learning reduced underestimation during the hypogravity analog. These altered gravity orientation perceptual errors and adaptation may have implications for astronauts.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Tamura ◽  
Yoshiro Wada ◽  
Akihiro Kurita ◽  
Takeshi Matsunobu ◽  
Takuo Inui ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (43) ◽  
pp. 14854-14858 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Baier ◽  
F. Thomke ◽  
J. Wilting ◽  
C. Heinze ◽  
C. Geber ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keisuke Tani ◽  
Shinji Yamamoto ◽  
Yasushi Kodaka ◽  
Keisuke Kushiro

AbstractAdditional gravitational cues generated by active body movements may play a role in the perception of gravitational space, but no experimental evidence has been shown on this. To investigate this possibility, we evaluated how arm movements made against gravity influenced the perceptual distortion of visual and postural vertical induced by prolonged whole-body tilt. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to perform static or dynamic arm movements during prolonged whole-body tilt and we assessed their effects on subjective visual vertical (SVV) at the tilt position (during-tilt session) and after tilting back to the upright position (post-tilt session). In Experiment 2, we evaluated how static or dynamic arm movements during prolonged tilt subsequently affected the subjective postural vertical (SPV). In Experiment 1, we observed that prolonged tilt induced the SVV shifts toward the side of body tilts in both sessions. The prolonged tilt-induced SVV shifts effectively decreased when performing dynamic arm movements in the during-tilt session, but not in the post-tilt session. In Experiment 2, the SPV shifted toward the side of prolonged body tilt, which was not significantly influenced by the performance of static or dynamic arm movements. Results of the during-tilt session suggest that the central nervous system utilizes additional cues generated by dynamic body movements for the perception of the visual vertical.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document