JN Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (July 1, 2009). doi:10.1152/jn.00007.2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
102/3/1657    most recent
00007.2008v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tarnutzer, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Olasagasti, I.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tarnutzer, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Olasagasti, I.
Submitted on January 3, 2008
Revised on June 24, 2009
Accepted on June 24, 2009

Gravity-dependence of subjective visual vertical variability

Alexander Andrea Tarnutzer1*, Christopher J Bockisch2, Dominik Straumann1, and Itsaso Olasagasti1

1 Zurich University Hospital
2 University Hospital Zurich

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: alexander.tarnutzer{at}access.uzh.ch.

The brain integrates sensory input from the otolith organs, the semicircular canals, and the somatosensory and visual systems to determine self-orientation relative to gravity. Only the otoliths directly sense the gravito-inertial force vector and therefore provide the major input for perceiving static head-roll relative to gravity, as measured by the subjective visual vertical (SVV). Intra-individual SVV variability increases with head roll, which suggests that the effectiveness of the otolith signal is roll-angle dependent. We asked whether SVV variability reflects the spatial distribution of the otolithic sensors and the otolith-derived acceleration estimate. Subjects were placed in different roll orientations (0 to 360°, 15° steps) and asked to align an arrow with perceived vertical. Variability was minimal in upright, increased with head-roll peaking around 120-135°, and decreased to intermediate values at 180°. Otolith-dependent variability was modeled by taking into consideration the non-uniform distribution of the otolith afferents and their non-linear firing rate. The otolith-derived estimate was combined with an internal bias shifting the estimated gravity-vector towards the body-longitudinal. Assuming an efficient otolith estimator at all roll angles, peak variability of the model matched our data; however, modeled variability in upside-down and in upright position was very similar, which is at odds with our findings. By decreasing the effectiveness of the otolith estimator with increasing roll, simulated variability matched our experimental findings better. We suggest that modulations of SVV precision in the roll plane are related to the properties of the otolith sensors, and to central computational mechanisms that are not optimally tuned for roll-angles distant from upright.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2009 by the The American Physiological Society.