Interpretation of a Discontinuity in the Sense of Verticality at Large Body Tilt

Kaptein, Ronald G.; Gisbergen, J.A.M. van

doi:10.1152/jn.00804.2003

Cited by 75 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…He showed that subjects could accurately adjust themselves to a horizontal position, but, once in this position, made substantial systematic errors in the perception of visual verticality. Later, combined tests confirmed the discrepancy between SVV and SBT accuracy (Mast and Jarchow, 1996;Jarchow and Mast, 1999;Van Beuzekom and Van Gisbergen, 2000;Van Beuzekom et al, 2001;Kaptein and Van Gisbergen, 2004;Vingerhoets et al, 2008). The present study is consistent with these findings, showing substantial systematic SVV errors at tilts Ն60°and fairly accurate SBT performance.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Multisensory Processing in Spatial Orientation: An Inverse Probabilistic Approach

Clemens

Vrijer²,

Selen³

et al. 2011

J. Neurosci.

130

298

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most evidence that the brain uses Bayesian inference to integrate noisy sensory signals optimally has been obtained by showing that the noise levels in each modality separately can predict performance in combined conditions. Such a forward approach is difficult to implement when the various signals cannot be measured in isolation, as in spatial orientation, which involves the processing of visual, somatosensory, and vestibular cues. Instead, we applied an inverse probabilistic approach, based on optimal observer theory. Our goal was to investigate whether the perceptual differences found when probing two different states-body-in-space and head-in-space orientation-can be reconciled by a shared scheme using all available sensory signals. Using a psychometric approach, seven human subjects were tested on two orientation estimates at tilts Ͻ120°: perception of body tilt [subjective body tilt (SBT)] and perception of visual vertical [subjective visual vertical (SVV)]. In all subjects, the SBT was more accurate than the SVV, which showed substantial systematic errors for tilt angles beyond 60°. Variability increased with tilt angle in both tasks, but was consistently lower in the SVV. The sensory integration model fitted both datasets very nicely. A further experiment, in which supine subjects judged their head orientation relative to the body, independently confirmed the predicted head-on-body noise by the model. Model predictions based on the derived noise properties from the various modalities were also consistent with previously published deficits in vestibular and somatosensory patients. We conclude that Bayesian computations can account for the typical differences in spatial orientation judgments associated with different task requirements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Multisensory Processing in Spatial Orientation: An Inverse Probabilistic Approach

Clemens

Vrijer²,

Selen³

et al. 2011

J. Neurosci.

130

298

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have used SVV to investigate the relative contributions of these cue types 12, 13, 14, 15. In the present study, we used not only the SVV but also the SPHV to quantitatively evaluate roll‐tilt perception.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual effects on the subjective visual vertical and subjective postural head vertical during static roll‐tilt

Tamura

Wada

Kurita

et al. 2017

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTilt perception is part of the perception of spatial orientation. It is determined not only by the allocentric gravity axis, but also by a second allocentric axis induced by visual information as well as by the egocentric body (head) axis induced by somatosensory information. The aim of this study was to quantify roll‐tilt perception using the subjective visual vertical (SVV) and the newly developed subjective postural head vertical (SPHV) and to investigate the visual effects on both during static roll‐tilt.Study DesignBasic scienceMethodsNine male volunteers participated in this study. A flight simulator was used to create several roll‐tilt environments that were then combined with visual information. SVV and SPHV were evaluated in healthy participants during static roll‐tilt.ResultsThe SVV evaluation revealed significant differences between the dark condition (control) and other visual conditions with respect to some of the body roll‐tilt environments, and between a body roll‐tilt of 0° and ≥ 20°. The SPHV evaluation revealed a significant difference between the dark condition and the visual condition that was always roll‐tilted 20° to the right of the body axis. However, there were no significant differences in SPHV error between a body roll‐tilt of 0° and other tilt angles for every visual condition, unlike SVV error.ConclusionsOur data indicate that human susceptibility to spatial disorientation is dependent on roll‐tilt angle and visual information. They also suggest that the SPHV is not affected by roll‐tilt angle, and thus differs from SVV.Level of EvidenceNA

show abstract

“…If, for example, subjects are asked to verbally report their estimated roll tilt positions, systematic errors are much smaller than if they are asked to estimate earthverticality (Kaptein and Van Gisbergen 2004;Van Beuzekom and Van Gisbergen 2000;Vingerhoets et al 2008). This suggests that sensory signals of head and body position relative to gravity are processed differently between estimating self-tilt and estimating earth-verticality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In a recent attempt to better characterize the perception of whole-body orientation, Kaptein and Van Gisbergen (2004) measured self-estimation of body tilt in healthy human subjects who were rotated to various whole-body roll positions over the full range of 360°. These authors found that verbally reported body tilt estimations (using 4 -Tatalias et al…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, estimation of body tilt at a given static whole-body position was not unequivocally determined by the whole-body roll position itself, but also depended on the direction of the previous whole-body roll rotation. Since Kaptein and Van Gisbergen (2004) used relatively fast velocities (30°/s) to reach static whole-body roll positions, it remains unclear whether the observed effect depended on the history of previous whole-body roll positions or on the velocity of whole-body roll rotation. Conceivably, both factors in combination could play a role.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Antihysteresis of perceived longitudinal body axis during continuous quasi-static whole-body rotation in the earth-vertical roll plane

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimation of subjective whole-body tilt in stationary roll positions after rapid rotations shows hysteresis. We asked whether this phenomenon is also present during continuous quasi-static whole-body rotation and whether gravitational cues are a major contributing factor. Using a motorized turntable, 8 healthy subjects were rotated continuously about the earth-horizontal naso-occipital axis (earth-vertical roll plane) and the earth-vertical naso-occipital axis (earth-horizontal roll plane). In both planes, three full constant velocity rotations (2°/s) were completed in clockwise and counterclockwise directions (acceleration = 0.05°/s(2), velocity plateau reached after 40 s). Subjects adjusted a visual line along the perceived longitudinal body axis (pLBA) every 2 s. pLBA deviation from the longitudinal body axis was plotted as a function of whole-body roll position, and a sine function was fitted. At identical whole-body earth-vertical roll plane positions, pLBA differed depending on whether the position was reached by a rotation from upright or by passing through upside down. After the first 360°r otation, pLBA at upright whole-body position deviated significantly in the direction of rotation relative to pLBA prior to rotation initiation. This deviation remained unchanged after subsequent full rotations. In contrast, earth-horizontal roll plane rotations resulted in similar pLBA before and after each rotation cycle. We conclude that the deviation of pLBA in the direction of rotation during quasi-static earth-vertical roll plane rotations reflects static antihysteresis and might be a consequence of the known static hysteresis of ocular counterroll: a visual line that is perceived that earth-vertical is expected to be antihysteretic, if ocular torsion is hysteretic.

show abstract

Interpretation of a Discontinuity in the Sense of Verticality at Large Body Tilt

Cited by 75 publications

References 18 publications

Multisensory Processing in Spatial Orientation: An Inverse Probabilistic Approach

Multisensory Processing in Spatial Orientation: An Inverse Probabilistic Approach

Visual effects on the subjective visual vertical and subjective postural head vertical during static roll‐tilt

Antihysteresis of perceived longitudinal body axis during continuous quasi-static whole-body rotation in the earth-vertical roll plane

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About