A method for analysing performance in the rod‐and‐frame test

Abstract

Abstract.— Scoring only the unsigned (absolute) errors in the Rod‐and‐Frame Test (RFT) is questioned because the method confounds a number of variables. Another way of scoring the RFT is proposed which differentiates between (1) the subject's constant error, (2) the effect of the tilted frame, and (3) the rod starting position effect. The method also allows estimation of the response consistency of the subject. What is more, the values for each subject of the constant error, of the frame tilt effect, and of the rod starting position effect may be tested for significance on the basis of the degree of response consistency observed for that particular subject, thus making the new method more person‐oriented than the unsigned error method.

Psychophysiological correlates of the inter-individual variability of head movement control in seated humans

“…The frame effect was calculated in degrees of angle according to Ref. [29]. The leftward and rightward frame effects were computed separately, and were summed to obtain the RFT score.…”

Re: “High variability of the subjective visual vertical test of vertical perception, in some people with neck pain – Should this be a standard measure of cervical proprioception?”

“…This prompted us to re-examine data we previously published on visual vertical and neck pain, also using the computerised rod-and-frame test (Bagust, et al, 2005;Docherty et al, 2012). Using analysis similar to that employed by Treleaven & Takasaki (2015) and Nyborg (1974), for determining Variable Error (VE) and Response Consistency (σ) respectively, we have calculated Variability as SD around the mean signed rod alignment error when the surrounding frame was tilted 18° from gravitational vertical in both clockwise and counter clockwise directions (Table 1).…”

Is vertical postural orientation in weightlessness correlated with the subjects’ perceptual typology?

“…The subject had to estimate the subjective vertical (SV) by means of a little bar placed in a square frame, which could be tilted to either the right or the left (188). The frame effect which reveals the error in the vertical subjective due to the tilted frame was calculated according to the method of Nyborg and Isaken [11]. In studies on these lines, the population under investigation is usually simply divided into visually independent subjects (VI: those making errors below the median value) and visually dependent subjects (VD: those making errors above the median value).…”