HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) A corrigendum has been published All Versions of this Article: 93/6/3356    most recent 01137.2004v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kaptein, R. G. Articles by Van Gisbergen, J. A. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kaptein, R. G. Articles by Van Gisbergen, J. A. M.

Nature of the Transition Between Two Modes of External Space Perception in Tilted Subjects

Department of Biophysics, Institute for Neuroscience, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Submitted 4 November 2004; accepted in final form 20 January 2005

A striking feature of visual verticality estimates in the dark is undercompensation for lateral body tilt. Earlier studies and models suggest that this so-called Aubert (A) effect increases gradually to around 130° tilt and then decays smoothly on approaching the inverted position. By contrast, we recently found an abrupt transition toward errors of opposite sign (E effect) when body tilt exceeded 135°. The present study was undertaken to clarify the nature of this transition. We tested the subjective visual vertical in stationary roll-tilted human subjects using various rotation paradigms and testing methods. Cluster analysis identified two clearly separate response modes (A or E effect), present in all conditions, which dominated in different but overlapping tilt ranges. Within the overlap zone, the subjective vertical appeared bistable on repeated testing with responses in both categories. The tilt range where bistability occurred depended on the direction of the preceding rotation (hysteresis). The overlap zone shifted to a smaller tilt angle when testing was preceded by a rotation through the inverted position, compared with short opposite rotations from upright. We discuss the possibility that the A-E transition reflects a reference shift from compensating line settings for the head deviation from upright to basing them on the tilt deviation of the feet from upright. In this scenario, both the A and the E effect reflect tilt undercompensation. To explain the hysteresis and the bistability, we propose that the transition is triggered when perceived body tilt, a signal with known noise and hysteresis properties, crosses a fixed threshold.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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.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]

				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]

				S. Park, C. Gianna-Poulin, F. O. Black, S. Wood, and D. M. Merfeld Roll Rotation Cues Influence Roll Tilt Perception Assayed Using a Somatosensory Technique J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2006; 96(1): 486 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. G. Kaptein and J. A.M. Van Gisbergen Canal and Otolith Contributions to Visual Orientation Constancy During Sinusoidal Roll Rotation J Neurophysiol, March 1, 2006; 95(3): 1936 - 1948. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]