| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 84 No. 1 July 2000, pp. 11-27
Copyright ©2000 by the American Physiological Society
Department of Medical Physics and Biophysics, University of Nijmegen, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Van Beuzekom, A. D. and
J.A.M. Van Gisbergen.
Properties of the Internal Representation of Gravity Inferred
From Spatial-Direction and Body-Tilt Estimates. J. Neurophysiol. 84: 11-27, 2000. One of the key
questions in spatial perception is whether the brain has a common
representation of gravity that is generally accessible for various
perceptual orientation tasks. To evaluate this idea, we compared the
ability of six tilted subjects to indicate earth-centric directions in
the dark with a visual and an oculomotor paradigm and to estimate their
body tilt relative to gravity. Subjective earth-horizontal and
-vertical data were collected, either by adjusting a visual line or by
making saccades, at 37 roll-tilt angles across the entire range. These
spatial perception responses and the associated body-tilt estimates
were subjected to a principal-component analysis to describe their tilt
dependence. This analysis allowed us to separate systematic and random
errors in performance, to disentangle the effects of task (horizontal vs. vertical) and paradigm (visual vs. oculomotor) in the
space-perception data, and to compare the veridicality of space
perception and the sense of self-tilt. In all spatial-orientation
tests, whether involving space-perception or body-tilt judgments,
subjects made considerable systematic errors which mostly betrayed tilt
underestimation [Aubert effect (A effect)] and peaked near 130°
tilt. However, the A effect was much smaller in body-tilt estimates
than in spatial pointing, implying that the underlying signal
processing must have been different. Pointing results obtained with the
visual and the oculomotor paradigm were not identical either, but these differences, which were task-related (horizontal vs. vertical), were
subtle in comparison. The tilt-dependent pattern of random errors
(noisy scatter) was almost identical in visual and oculomotor pointing
results, showing a steep monotonic increase with tilt angle, but was
again clearly different in the body-tilt estimates. These findings are
discussed in the context of a conceptual model in an attempt to explain
how the different patterns of systematic and random errors in
external-space and self-tilt perception may come about. The scheme
proposes that basically similar computational mechanisms, working with
different settings, may be responsible.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. A. A. Vingerhoets, M. De Vrijer, J. A. M. Van Gisbergen, and W. P. Medendorp Fusion of Visual and Vestibular Tilt Cues in the Perception of Visual Vertical J Neurophysiol, March 1, 2009; 101(3): 1321 - 1333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. P. Weber, C. J. Bockisch, I. Olasagasti, and D. Straumann Modulation of Saccade Curvature by Ocular Counterroll Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2009; 50(3): 1158 - 1167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Higashiyama and K. Koga Perceived range, perceived velocity, and perceived duration of the body rotating in the frontal plane Atten Percept Psychophys, January 1, 2009; 71(1): 104 - 115. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. N. Lorincz and B. J. M. Hess Dynamic Effects on the Subjective Visual Vertical After Roll Rotation J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2008; 100(2): 657 - 669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Lewis, C. Haburcakova, and D. M. Merfeld Roll Tilt Psychophysics in Rhesus Monkeys During Vestibular and Visual Stimulation J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2008; 100(1): 140 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R.A.A. Vingerhoets, W. P. Medendorp, and J.A.M. Van Gisbergen Body-Tilt and Visual Verticality Perception During Multiple Cycles of Roll Rotation J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2008; 99(5): 2264 - 2280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. De Vrijer, W. P. Medendorp, and J.A.M. Van Gisbergen Shared Computational Mechanism for Tilt Compensation Accounts for Biased Verticality Percepts in Motion and Pattern Vision J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2008; 99(2): 915 - 930. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R.A.A. Vingerhoets, J.A.M. Van Gisbergen, and W. P. Medendorp Verticality Perception During Off-Vertical Axis Rotation J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2007; 97(5): 3256 - 3268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Senot, M. Zago, F. Lacquaniti, and J. McIntyre Anticipating the Effects of Gravity When Intercepting Moving Objects: Differentiating Up and Down Based on Nonvisual Cues J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2005; 94(6): 4471 - 4480. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Van Pelt, J.A.M. Van Gisbergen, and W. P. Medendorp Visuospatial Memory Computations During Whole-Body Rotations in Roll J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2005; 94(2): 1432 - 1442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. G. Kaptein and J. A. M. Van Gisbergen Nature of the Transition Between Two Modes of External Space Perception in Tilted Subjects J Neurophysiol, June 1, 2005; 93(6): 3356 - 3369. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. G. Kaptein and J. A. M. Van Gisbergen Interpretation of a Discontinuity in the Sense of Verticality at Large Body Tilt J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2004; 91(5): 2205 - 2214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
