Adaptive processes determining proprioceptive perception of verticality.

Pearson, Roberta; Hauty, George T.

doi:10.1037/h0039594

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result parallels the studies of Solley (1956) and Pearson and Hauty (1959), who showed that when the subjects were asked to return themselves from a laterally tilted position to the apparent vertical, the difference between the adjusted tilt and the true vertical was reduced over a series of trials, even though the subjects were not told either the magnitude or the direction of their errors.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…In other words, the gravitational vertical was perceived as being almost upright under the 0°adaptation, whereas the tilt of6.97°to the direction of the adapting stimulus was perceived as being upright under the 72°adaptation. This result supported the classic studies based on the matching method (Clegg, 1954;Clegg & Dunfield, 1954a, 1954bFleishman, 1953;Howard & Templeton, 1966;Mann & Passey, 1951;Pearson & Hauty, 1959;Solley, 1956), which indicated that, after adapting to tilted position, the subject inclined his or her body by 0,50-6.0°to the direction of the adapting stimulus in order to perceive the body as being upright.…”

Section: Unbiased Scalesupporting

confidence: 77%

“…This procedure was simple but necessary to control postural aftereffects. In previous studies where the body was tilted only to the left (Fujita, 1956), to the right (Ebenholtz, 1970), or backward (Ebenholtz & Shebilske, 1973), asymmetrical postural aftereffects seem to have taken place, so that the judgments of body tilt may have differed from those under the 0°adaptation (Pearson & Hauty, 1959).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Apparent body tilt and postural aftereffect

Higashiyama

Koga

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apparent orientation of the body tilted laterally in the frontal plane was studied with the methods of absolute judgments in four experiments. In Experiment 1, 17 subjects, who maintained the normal adaptation of body to gravity,estimated their body tilts under the condition of seeing the gravitational vertical and under the condition of eliminating it. The results showed that (1) there was not a significant difference between the two conditions and (2) the small tilts of less than 45°were exactly estimated, whereas the large tilts of 45°-108°were overestimated. In Experiment 2, 10subjects estimated their body tilts under three velocities of a rotating chair on which each subject was placed. Although both body tilt and chair velocity were found to influence tilt estimation, the effect of body tilt was overwhelmingly greater than that of chair velocity. In Experiment 3, 11 subjects adapted their bodies to a 72°left tilt for 10 min and then estimated various body tilts around the adapting tilt. The estimations obtained under the 72°adaptation were lower than those obtained under the 0°adaptation, and this reduction was greater for the test tilt that was farther away from the adapting tilt. In Experiment 4, 11 subjects adjusted their own body tilts to designated angles. The results confirmed the outcomes of absolute estimation in Experiments 1-3. From these findings and past literature, the judgments of body tilt were considered to be subserved by a single sensory process that was based on the cutaneous and muscular proprioceptors, rather than the vestibular and joint proprioceptors. 331We investigated apparent orientation of the body by tilting it laterally in the frontal plane.' The first concern was to establish psychophysical scale for body tilt under normal adaptation of the body to gravity. The second concern was to explore the processes and proprioceptors that make the perception ofbody tilt possible. For the latter concern, we made use of postural aftereffects or postural persistence: the sense of position of a limb, the head, or the eyes that may be temporarily affected when an asymmetrical posture is maintained for some time (F. 1. Clark & Horch, 1986;Howard, 1982). In this study, after being placed at a certain fixed tilt for some time, the subjects judged their various body tilts around the fixed tilt. On the basis of extent and magnitude of postural aftereffects, we assessed how many processes (single or double) exert in the perception of body tilt. Moreover, we considered how the processes are related to the nonvisual proprioceptors, such as the cutaneous, vestibular, joint, and muscular proprioceptors.?One conventional method of measuring apparent body tilt is to have the subject indicate his or her apparent bodyThe authors are grateful to Y.Ohta, who helped collect the data of Experiments 2 and 3, and to K. Shimono, who critically read the earlier manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to K. Koga, Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Nagoya University, Furo-cho Nagoya 464-0 I, Japan...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Unbiased Scalesupporting

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Apparent body tilt and postural aftereffect

Higashiyama

Koga

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The confirmation of our previous finding (Pearson & Hauty, 1959) that "passing through the vertical" is an important variable in perception of postural verticality may have important implications regarding the results of work by Mann, Berthelot-Berry, and Dauterive (1949) and Solley (1956).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Role of postural experience in proprioceptive perception of verticality.

Pearson¹,

Hauty²

1960

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Various studies have given subjects,a standard prior to performance, with attempts to match it in various ways afterward (Newell, 1976;Pearson & Hauty, 1959;Solley, 1956;Wrisberg & Schmidt, 1975;Zelaznik & Spring, 1976). In none of these studies was KR given after subjects' movement attempts, and yet there were clear reductions in error with practice (see also Adams & Dijkstra, 1966;McCracken & Schmidt, cited in Schmidt, 1975a).…”

Section: Information About Errors and Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.

Salmoni¹,

Schmidt²,

Walter³

1984

Psychological Bulletin

1,190

807

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous analyses of knowledge of results (KR) and motor learning have generally confounded the transient performance effects as shown when KR is present and the relatively permanent (i.e., learned) effects that we argue should be evaluated on a transfer test without KR. In this review, we classify investigations according to this distinction, and a number of new relations emerge between KR and both learning and performance. In addition to the motivational and associational roles of KR, we emphasize that it also acts as guidance, enhancing performance when it is present but degrading learning if it is given too frequently.

show abstract

Adaptive processes determining proprioceptive perception of verticality.

Cited by 12 publications

References 5 publications

Apparent body tilt and postural aftereffect

Apparent body tilt and postural aftereffect

Role of postural experience in proprioceptive perception of verticality.

Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About