The motor vertical in the absence of gravicentric cues

Abstract

When participants are asked to flip an omnidirectional switch "down", the direction of their responses depends mainly on gravicentric, less so on egocentric and least on visual cues about the vertical (Lackner and DiZio, Exp. Brain Res. 130:2−26, 2000). Here we evaluate response direction when gravicentric cues are not available. Participants flipped an omnidirectional switch "down" when gravito-inertial force acted orthogonally to the response plane on earth (session E), and when it was near zero during parabolic flights (session P). We found that the relative weight of visual cues was similar in both sessions, and it was similar to that in an earlier study where participants stood upright. Across all three data sets, the weight of visual cues averaged 0.09. The relative weight of egocentric cues was also similar in both sessions, averaging 0.87; however, it was significantly lower in the earlier study with upright participants, where it averaged 0.43. We further found that informative and noninformative tactile stimulation had no substantial effects on response direction, which suggests that the earlier reported anchoring effect of tactile signals for the perceived vertical may not extend to the motor vertical. We conclude that the absence of gravicentric cues is compensated by a higher weight of egocentric cues, but not by a higher weight of visual cues. As a consequence, astronauts, divers and persons who work on ground in a horizontal body posture may mishandle equipment because of their strong reliance on egocentric cues.

Mental imagery of object motion in weightlessness

“…On Earth, the vertical direction is estimated by a combination of gravity, body, and vision cues, each weighted based on its reliability 72 . In weightlessness, the motor and perceptual “vertical” are often dominated by body-centered cues 73 – 75 . In the present experiments, there were no gravity-related cues nor visual cues about the imaginary ball trajectory.…”