1. We studied horizontal eye and head movements in three monkeys that were trained to direct their gaze (eye position in space) toward jumping targets while their heads were both fixed and free to rotate about a vertical axis. We considered all gaze movements that traveled > or = 80% of the distance to the new visual target. 2. The relative contributions and metrics of eye and head movements to the gaze shift varied considerably from animal to animal and even within animals. Head movements could be initiated early or late and could be large or small. The eye movements of some monkeys showed a consistent decrease in velocity as the head accelerated, whereas others did not. Although all gaze shifts were hypometric, they were more hypometric in some monkeys than in others. Nevertheless, certain features of the gaze shift were identifiable in all monkeys. To identify those we analyzed gaze, eye in head position, and head position, and their velocities at three points in time during the gaze shift: 1) when the eye had completed its initial rotation toward the target, 2) when the initial gaze shift had landed, and 3) when the head movement was finished. 3. For small gaze shifts (< 20 degrees) the initial gaze movement consisted entirely of an eye movement because the head did not move. As gaze shifts became larger, the eye movement contribution saturated at approximately 30 degrees and the head movement contributed increasingly to the initial gaze movement. For the largest gaze shifts, the eye usually began counterrolling or remained stable in the orbit before gaze landed. During the interval between eye and gaze end, the head alone carried gaze to completion. Finally, when the head movement landed, it was almost aimed at the target and the eye had returned to within 10 +/- 7 degrees, mean +/- SD, of straight ahead. Between the end of the gaze shift and the end of the head movement, gaze remained stable in space or a small correction saccade occurred. 4. Gaze movements < 20 degrees landed accurately on target whether the head was fixed or free. For larger target movements, both head-free and head-fixed gaze shifts became increasingly hypometric. Head-free gaze shifts were more accurate, on average, but also more variable. This suggests that gaze is controlled in a different way with the head free. For target amplitudes < 60 degrees, head position was hypometric but the error was rather constant at approximately 10 degrees.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

The vestibular signal of head motion in space must be complemented by a neck signal of the trunk-to-head excursion in order to provide the individual with information on trunk motion in space. This consideration led us to study psychophysically the role of vestibular-neck interaction for human self-motion perception. Subjects (Ss) were presented with passive horizontal rotations of their trunk and/or head (sinusoidal rotations, f = 0.025 - 0.4 Hz) in the dark for vestibular and neck stimulation, as well as for combinations of both. Ss' perception was evaluated in terms of gain (veridical perception of stimulus magnitude, G = 1), phase, and detection threshold. (1) Perception of trunk rotation in space. During vestibular stimulation (whole-body rotation) and neck stimulation (trunk rotation with the head kept stationary) the frequency-transfer characteristics underlying this perception were very similar. The gain fell short; it was only about 0.7 at 0.4 and 0.2 Hz stimulus frequency and was further attenuated with decreasing frequency. In contrast, the phase was close to that of actual trunk position. The gain attenuation was found to be a function of the peak angular velocity of the stimulus, a fact, which we related to a 'velocity threshold' of the order of 1 deg/s. During the various vestibular-neck combinations used, Ss' perception was again erroneous, reflecting essentially the sum of its two non-ideal constituents. However, there was one noticeable exception; during the combination 'head rotation on stationary trunk', Ss veridically perceived their trunk as stationary (compatible with the notion that the sum yielded 'zero'). (2) Perception of head rotation in space. During vestibular stimulation, Ss' estimates showed the same non-ideal gain-vs.-frequency characteristics as described above for the trunk. Neck stimulation induced an illusion as if the head had been rotated in space. This neck contribution was such that, when it was combined with its vestibular counterpart during head rotation on stationary trunk, the perception became almost veridical. On closer inspection, however, this neck contribution was found to reflect the sum of two components; one was the non-ideal neck signal contributing to the perception of 'trunk in space', the other was an almost ideal neck signal of head-on-trunk rotation. (3) The results could be described by a simple model. In this model, the erroneous vestibular signal 'head in space' is primarily used to create an internal representation of 'trunk in space'.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

The fastigial nucleus (FN) receives vestibular information predominantly from Purkinje cells of the vermis. FN in the monkey can be divided in a rostral part, related to spinal mechanisms, and a caudal part with oculomotor functions. To understand the role of FN during movements in space, single-unit activity in alert monkeys was recorded during passive three-dimensional head movements from rostral FN. Seated monkeys were rotated sinusoidally around a horizontal earth-fixed axis (vertical stimulation) at different orientations 15 degrees apart (including roll, pitch, vertical canal plane and intermediate planes). In addition, sinusoidal rotations around an earth-vertical axis (yaw stimulus) included different roll and pitch positions (+/-10 degrees, +/-20 degrees). The latter positions were also used for static stimulation. One hundred fifty-eight neurons in two monkeys were modulated during the sinusoidal vertical search stimulation. The vast majority showed a uniform response pattern: a maximum at a specific head orientation (response vector orientation) and a null response 90 degrees apart. Detailed analysis was obtained from 111 neurons. On the basis of their phase relation during dynamic stimulation and their response to static tilt, these neurons were classified as vertical semicircular canal related (n = 79, 71.2%) or otolith related (n = 25; 22.5%). Only seven neurons did not follow the usual response pattern and were classified as complex neurons. For the vertical canal-related neurons (n = 79) all eight major response vector orientations (ipsilateral or contralateral anterior canal, posterior canal, roll, and nose-down and nose-up pitch) were found in Fn on one side. Neurons with ipsilateral orientations were more numerous and on average more sensitive than those with contralateral orientations. Twenty-eight percent of the vertical canal-related neurons also responded to horizontal canal stimulation. None of the vertical canal-related neurons responded to static tilt. Otolith-related neurons (n = 25) had a phase relation close to head position and were considerably less numerous than canal-related neurons. Except for pitch, all other response vector orientations were found. Seventy percent of these neurons responding during dynamic stimulation also responded during static tilt. The sensitivity during dynamic stimulation was always higher than during static stimulation. Sixty-one percent of the otolith-related neurons responded also to horizontal canal stimulation. These results show that in FN, robust vestibular signals are abundant. Canal-related responses are much more common than otolith-related responses. Although for many canal neurons the responses can be related to single canal planes, convergence between vertical canals but also with horizontal canals is common.

Neurons in the rostral part of the fastigial nucleus (FN) respond to vestibular stimulation but are not related to eye movements. To understand the precise role of these vestibular-only neurons in the central processing of vestibular signals, unit activity in the FN of alert monkeys (Macaca mulatta) was recorded. To induce vestibular stimulation, the monkey was rotated sinusoidally around an earth-fixed horizontal axis at stimulus frequencies between 0.06 (+/-15 degrees) and 1.4 Hz (+/-7.5 degrees). During stimulation head orientation was changed continuously, allowing for roll, pitch, and intermediate planes of orientation. At a frequency of 0.6 Hz, 59% of the neurons had an optimal response orientation (ORO) and a null response (i.e., no modulation) 90 degrees apart. The phase of neuronal response was constant except for a steep shift of 180 degrees around the null response. This group I response is compatible with a semicircular canal input, canal convergence, or a single otolith input. Several other features indicated more complex responses, including spatiotemporal convergence (STC). 1) For 35% of the responses at 0.6 Hz, phase changes were gradual with different orientations. Fifteen percent of these had a null response (group II), and 20% showed only a minimal response but no null response (group III). The remaining responses (6%), classified as group IV, were characterized by a constant sensitivity at different orientations in most instances. 2) For the vast majority of neurons, the stimulus frequency determined the response group, i.e., an individual neuron could show a group I response at one frequency and a group II (III or IV) response at another frequency. 3) ORO changed with frequency by >45 degrees for 44% of the neurons. 4) Although phase changes at different frequencies were close to head velocity (+/-45 degrees ) or head position (+/-45 degrees ) for most neurons, they exceeded 90 degrees for 29% of the neurons between 0.1 and 1.0 Hz. In most cases, this was a phase advance. The change in sensitivity with change in frequency showed a similar pattern for all neurons; the average sensitivity increased from 1.24 imp. s-1. deg-1 at 0.1 Hz to 2.97 imp. s-1. deg-1 at 1.0 Hz. These data demonstrate that only an analysis based on measurements at different frequencies and orientations reveals a number of complex features. They moreover suggest that for the vast majority of neurons several sources of canal and otolith information interact at this central stage of vestibular information processing.

These findings do not support the hypothesis of a vertical VOR imbalance and put into question the view that DBN is a central vestibular syndrome in the sense of vestibular dysfunction. Although DBN possibly involves vestibulocerebellar pathways, in the patients that we studied, DBN did not affect the immediate VOR responses in the high-frequency range that corresponds to natural head movements.