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: 99/2/915    most recent 00921.2007v1 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 ISI Web of Science (1) Google Scholar Articles by De Vrijer, M. Articles by Van Gisbergen, J.A.M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by De Vrijer, M. Articles by Van Gisbergen, J.A.M.

Shared Computational Mechanism for Tilt Compensation Accounts for Biased Verticality Percepts in Motion and Pattern Vision

¹Department of Biophysics, Institute for Neuroscience, ²Nijmegen Institute for Cognition and Information, and ³FC Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Submitted 16 August 2007; accepted in final form 19 December 2007

To determine the direction of object motion in external space, the brain must combine retinal motion signals and information about the orientation of the eyes in space. We assessed the accuracy of this process in eight laterally tilted subjects who aligned the motion direction of a random-dot pattern (30% coherence, moving at 6°/s) with their perceived direction of gravity (motion vertical) in otherwise complete darkness. For comparison, we also tested the ability to align an adjustable visual line (12° diameter) to the direction of gravity (line vertical). For small head tilts (<40°), systematic errors in either task were almost negligible. In contrast, tilts >60° revealed a pattern of large systematic errors (often >30°) that was virtually identical in both tasks. Regression analysis confirmed that mean errors in the two tasks were closely related, with slopes close to 1.0 and correlations >0.89. Control experiments ruled out that motion settings were based on processing of individual single-dot paths. We conclude that the conversion of both motion direction and line orientation on the retina into a spatial frame of reference involves a shared computational strategy. Simulations with two spatial-orientation models suggest that the pattern of systematic errors may be the downside of an optimal strategy for dealing with imperfections in the tilt signal that is implemented before the reference-frame transformation.