| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Department of Biophysics, Institute for Neuroscience, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: r.kaptein{at}science.ru.nl.
A striking feature of visual verticality estimates in the dark is under-compensation for lateral body tilt. Earlier studies and models suggest that this so-called A-effect increases gradually to around 130° tilt and then decays smoothly upon 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 upon 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 to 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 under-compensation. 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]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
