The subjective visual horizontal for different body tilts in the roll plane: Characterization of normal subjects

Tribukait, Arne; Bergenius, Johan; Brantberg, Krister

doi:10.1016/0361-9230(96)00130-x

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The amplification of the oblique effect in visual-haptic comparisons is not an additive process and has yet to be explained; it could be a biproduct of a multiplicative process such as the vestibular and proprioceptive gain fields proposed for the lateral intraparietal area lateral intraparietal area and area 7a (Andersen, 1997). The bias of perceived body axis for leftward tilt observed here may be linked to asymmetries in vestibular function Tribukait et al, 1996). In this case, vestibular cortex (parieto-insular cortex) is a prime candidate for the locus of visual-vestibular coordination, given the convergence of visual, vestibular, and somatosensory information in this region (Brandt and Dieterich, 1999).…”

Section: Central or Peripheral?mentioning

confidence: 68%

“…But chair inclination had a significant effect on indications of the body axis (F (2,18) ϭ 14.95; p Ͻ 0.001): whereas inclination to the right side provoked no significant error in the subjective perception of the body axis, the error in perception of body axis with the chair inclined to the left (8.8°on average) was significant ( p Ͻ 0.01). To the best of our knowledge, no data on a subject's ability to align a visual stimulus with his or her body axis have been reported in the literature, although studies have reported asymmetrical biases in tests of the subjective visual vertical Tribukait et al, 1996). It is worth emphasizing, therefore, the generalization of this observation across subjects in our experiment; all 11 subjects had positive errors, on average, when indicating their body axis during leftward tilt, whereas positive and negative errors were equally likely for the upright and rightward-inclined positions.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Whole-body Tiltmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Central Processes Amplify and Transform Anisotropies of the Visual System in a Test of Visual–Haptic Coordination

McIntyre¹,

Lipshits²

2008

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CNS may use multimodal reference frames to combine proprioceptive, visual, and gravitational information. Indeed, spatial information could be encoded simultaneously with respect to egocentric and allocentric references such as the body axis and gravity, respectively. It has further been proposed that gravity might serve to align reference frames between different sensory modalities. We performed a series of experiments in which human subjects matched the orientation of a visual stimulus to a visual reference (visual-visual), a haptic stimulus to a haptic reference (haptic-haptic), or a visual stimulus to a haptic reference (visual-haptic). These tests were performed in a normal upright posture, with the body tilted with respect to gravity, and in the weightless environment of Earth orbit. We found systematic patterns of errors in the matching of stimulus orientations. For an upright posture on Earth, a classic oblique effect appeared in the visual-visual comparison, which was then amplified in the haptic-visual task. Leftward or rightward whole-body tilt on Earth abolished both of these effects, yet each persisted in the absence of gravity. Leftward and rightward tilt also produced asymmetric biases in the visual-haptic but not in the visual-visual or haptic-haptic responses. These results illustrate how spatial anisotropy can be molded by sensorimotor transformations in the CNS. Furthermore, the results indicate that gravity plays a significant, but nonessential role in defining the reference frames for these tasks. These results provide insight into how the nervous system processes spatial information between different sensory modalities.

show abstract

Section: Central or Peripheral?mentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Experiments 2: Whole-body Tiltmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central Processes Amplify and Transform Anisotropies of the Visual System in a Test of Visual–Haptic Coordination

McIntyre¹,

Lipshits²

2008

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the 1g environment, all subjects except 1 had an SVH or SVV that was within the normal range [Ϫ2.5º to ϩ2.5º (Böhmer & Rickenmann, 1995;Dai et al, 1989;Tribukait et al, 1996)]. The group mean of SVH was Ϫ0.75º Ϯ 1.1 (SD), n ϭ 10.…”

Section: The Svh and Svv In 1g Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thanks to a compensation function, using information from the otolith receptors, at moderate static lateral head tilts (Ͻ30º) subjects may still set the luminous line approximately horizontally or vertically (Tribukait, Bergenius, & Brantberg, 1996;Udo de Haes, 1970). At larger tilts (60º-90º), however, there is often an underestimation of the head and body tilt so that the subjective horizontal or vertical deviates by 20º-30º from veridicality (Mittelstaedt, 1991;Udo de Haes, 1970).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of the head transversal plane and the subjective horizontal during gondola centrifugation

Tribukait

Eiken

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The subjective visual horizontal (SVH) and the subjective head transversal plane (STP) were measured by means of an adjustable luminous line in darkness during centrifuging. Subjects (N ϭ 10) were seated upright, facing forward in a swing-out gondola. After acceleration of the centrifuge to 2G (vectorial sum of the earth's gravity and the centrifugal force; gondola inclination 60º), subjects had to set the line either so that it was perceived as gravitoinertially horizontal (SVH) or so that it was perceived as parallel with the transversal ("horizontal") plane of the head (STP). Initially after acceleration, the SVH was tilted with respect to the gravitoinertial horizontal of the gondola (M ϭ 16.6º). This tilt was compensatory with respect to the gondola inclination. However, the STP was tilted in the opposite direction (M ϭ 12.4º), which might suggest a vestibular-induced distortion of the mental representation of one's own body. Similar results were obtained when measuring the subjective visual vertical (SVV) and the subjective midsagittal plane (SSP) in 5 subjects. The perceived roll angle (obtained as SVHϪSTP or SVVϪSSP) was considerably larger than had previously been reported. Time constants for exponential decay of the tilt of the SVH or SVV were often 2-3 min, indicating a memory for semicircular canal information on changes in head orientation-a position-storage mechanism.

show abstract

“…Normal subjects in the upright position can align the subjective visual vertical (SVV) within 2°-3°of gravitational (earth) vertical (Friedmann 1970;Dai et al 1989;Tribukait et al 1996;Karlberg et al 2002). When rotated to a tilted position in the roll plane, normal subjects become less accurate in aligning the SVV to gravitational vertical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neck Muscle Vibration Alters Visually Perceived Roll in Normals

McKenna

Peng

Zee

2004

JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngolog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to determine whether vibration of dorsal neck muscles or of the mastoid bone or of both modified the perception of visual orientation in the head roll-tilt plane in normal subjects. Measurements of the subjective visual vertical (SVV) were obtained from 26 normal human subjects. Subjects reported the SVV in the upright and in the left and right 30°static head roll-tilt positions. Subjects then reported the SVV while vibration was applied to the left or right dorsal neck or left or right mastoid. Both head position and vibration independently modified settings of the SVV. In head-tilted positions, vibration of the upper dorsal neck muscles (on the side of the head opposite to the head tilt) caused a significantly greater shift of the SVV in the opposite direction of head roll-tilt compared to vibration of the lower dorsal neck muscles or of the mastoid. These results support a role for cervical somatosensory information in perception of visual orientation in the roll plane. Our findings may help explain the differences observed in visual orientation perception in normal subjects between head alone and whole-body roll-tilt. Finally, vibration of neck muscles in the head roll-tilted plane may be a useful method to test cervical somatosensory function possibly by increasing their response to external stimulation.

show abstract

The subjective visual horizontal for different body tilts in the roll plane: Characterization of normal subjects

Cited by 29 publications

References 46 publications

Central Processes Amplify and Transform Anisotropies of the Visual System in a Test of Visual–Haptic Coordination

Central Processes Amplify and Transform Anisotropies of the Visual System in a Test of Visual–Haptic Coordination

Perception of the head transversal plane and the subjective horizontal during gondola centrifugation

Neck Muscle Vibration Alters Visually Perceived Roll in Normals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About