JN Ad Instruments
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (December 31, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.90725.2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
101/3/1321    most recent
90725.2008v1
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 Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vingerhoets, R. A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Medendorp, W. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vingerhoets, R. A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Medendorp, W. P.
Submitted on July 1, 2008
Revised on November 3, 2008
Accepted on December 20, 2008

Fusion of visual and vestibular tilt cues in the perception of visual vertical

Rens Adriaan Anton Vingerhoets1, Maaike de Vrijer1, Jan A.M. van Gisbergen2, and W. Pieter Medendorp1*

1 Radboud University Nijmegen
2 Univ. of Nijmegen

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: p.medendorp{at}donders.ru.nl.

We investigated the effect of visual and vestibular body-tilt cues on the subjective-visual vertical (SVV) in six human observers at roll tilts of 0, 60 and 120°. Subjects adjusted a small luminous-test line parallel to the perceived direction of gravity, in the presence of a large peripheral visual-frame line. These settings, referred to as the frame SVV, were compared to the SVV in complete darkness (dark SVV). The frame SVV was virtually identical to the dark SVV for frame lines parallel or orthogonal to the dark SVV. Away from these neutral positions, the frame induced a periodic SVV-modulation, which was small in upright observers, but became quite pronounced when subjects were tilted. For upright, where the dark SVV was very accurate, the frame SVV showed errors in both directions, following a roughly symmetrical pattern. At 120° tilt, where the dark SVV invariably showed tilt under-compensation (A-effect), the frame effect became asymmetrical, with a stronger tendency to improve than to worsen accuracy. We tested whether our findings could be explained by two spatial orientation models: Mittelstaedt's idiotropic model and a Bayesian scheme with a stage for the processing of visual cues. Both models show a periodic frame effect that becomes stronger with increasing body tilt and can explain why frame lines parallel or perpendicular to the dark SVV are ineffective. Based on their performance, we conclude that perception of the visual vertical is based on a centrally weighted fusion of visual, vestibular and egocentric references.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.