Because sensory systems often provide ambiguous information, neural processes must exist to resolve these ambiguities. It is likely that similar neural processes are used by different sensory systems. For example, many tasks require neural processing to distinguish linear acceleration from gravity, but Einstein's equivalence principle states that all linear accelerometers must measure both linear acceleration and gravity. Here we investigate whether the brain uses internal models, defined as neural systems that mimic physical principles, to help estimate linear acceleration and gravity. Internal models may be used in motor contro, sensorimotor integration and sensory processing, but direct experimental evidence for such models is limited. To determine how humans process ambiguous gravity and linear acceleration cues, subjects were tilted after being rotated at a constant velocity about an Earth-vertical axis. We show that the eye movements evoked by this post-rotational tilt include a response component that compensates for the estimated linear acceleration even when no actual linear acceleration occurs. These measured responses are consistent with our internal model predictions that the nervous system can develop a non-zero estimate of linear acceleration even when no true linear acceleration is present.

The sensory weighting model is a general model of sensory integration that consists of three processing layers. First, each sensor provides the central nervous system (CNS) with information regarding a specific physical variable. Due to sensor dynamics, this measure is only reliable for the frequency range over which the sensor is accurate. Therefore, we hypothesize that the CNS improves on the reliability of the individual sensor outside this frequency range by using information from other sensors, a process referred to as "frequency completion." Frequency completion uses internal models of sensory dynamics. This "improved" sensory signal is designated as the "sensory estimate" of the physical variable. Second, before being combined, information with different physical meanings is first transformed into a common representation; sensory estimates are converted to intermediate estimates. This conversion uses internal models of body dynamics and physical relationships. Third, several sensory systems may provide information about the same physical variable (e.g., semicircular canals and vision both measure self-rotation). Therefore, we hypothesize that the "central estimate" of a physical variable is computed as a weighted sum of all available intermediate estimates of this physical variable, a process referred to as "multicue weighted averaging." The resulting central estimate is fed back to the first two layers. The sensory weighting model is applied to three-dimensional (3D) visual-vestibular interactions and their associated eye movements and perceptual responses. The model inputs are 3D angular and translational stimuli. The sensory inputs are the 3D sensory signals coming from the semicircular canals, otolith organs, and the visual system. The angular and translational components of visual movement are assumed to be available as separate stimuli measured by the visual system using retinal slip and image deformation. In addition, both tonic ("regular") and phasic ("irregular") otolithic afferents are implemented. Whereas neither tonic nor phasic otolithic afferents distinguish gravity from linear acceleration, the model uses tonic afferents to estimate gravity and phasic afferents to estimate linear acceleration. The model outputs are the internal estimates of physical motion variables and 3D slow-phase eye movements. The model also includes a smooth pursuit module. The model matches eye responses and perceptual effects measured during various motion paradigms in darkness (e.g., centered and eccentric yaw rotation about an earth-vertical axis, yaw rotation about an earth-horizontal axis) and with visual cues (e.g., stabilized visual stimulation or optokinetic stimulation).

. All linear accelerometers measure gravitoinertial force, which is the sum of gravitational force (tilt) and inertial force due to linear acceleration (translation). Neural strategies must exist to elicit tilt and translation responses from this ambiguous cue. To investigate these neural processes, we developed a model of human responses and simulated a number of motion paradigms used to investigate this tilt/translation ambiguity. In this model, the separation of GIF into neural estimates of gravity and linear acceleration is accomplished via an internal model made up of three principal components: 1) the influence of rotational cues (e.g., semicircular canals) on the neural representation of gravity, 2) the resolution of gravitoinertial force into neural representations of gravity and linear acceleration, and 3) the neural representation of the dynamics of the semicircular canals. By combining these simple hypotheses within the internal model framework, the model mimics human responses to a number of different paradigms, ranging from simple paradigms, like roll tilt, to complex paradigms, like postrotational tilt and centrifugation. It is important to note that the exact same mechanisms can explain responses induced by simple movements as well as by more complex paradigms; no additional elements or hypotheses are needed to match the data obtained during more complex paradigms. Therefore these modeled response characteristics are consistent with available data and with the hypothesis that the nervous system uses internal models to estimate tilt and translation in the presence of ambiguous sensory cues. I N T R O D U C T I O NAll linear accelerometers (e.g., otolith organs) measure gravity and linear acceleration. The nervous system must process these cues to elicit appropriate responses during translation [e.g., translational vestibuloocular reflex (VOR)] and tilt (e.g., postural control). It has been shown that neural processes of sensory integration are used to separate otolith measures of gravitoinertial force to yield responses for both tilt and translation. For example, canal cues influence the processing of tilt (Hess and