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) All Versions of this Article: 96/1/486    most recent 01163.2005v1 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 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 Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Park, S. Articles by Merfeld, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Park, S. Articles by Merfeld, D. M.

REPORT

Roll Rotation Cues Influence Roll Tilt Perception Assayed Using a Somatosensory Technique

¹Jenks Vestibular Physiology Lab, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and ²Department of Otology and Laryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; ³Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea; and ⁴Neuro-otology Research, Legacy Clinical Research and Technology Center, Portland, Oregon

Submitted 3 November 2005; accepted in final form 20 March 2006

We investigated how the nervous system processes ambiguous cues from the otolith organs by measuring roll tilt perception elicited by two motion paradigms. In one paradigm (tilt), eight subjects were sinusoidally tilted in roll with the axis of rotation near ear level. Stimulus frequencies ranged from 0.005 to 0.7 Hz, and the peak amplitude of tilt was 20°. During this paradigm, subjects experienced a sinusoidal variation of interaural gravitational force with a peak of 0.34 g. The second motion paradigm (translation) was designed to yield the same sinusoidal variation in interaural force but did not include a roll canal cue. This was achieved by sinusoidally translating the subjects along their interaural axis. For the 0.7-Hz translation trial, the subjects were simply translated from side to side. A centrifuge was used for the 0.005- to 0.5-Hz translation trials; the subjects were rotated in yaw at 250°/s for 5 min before initiating sinusoidal translations yielding an interaural otolith stimulus composed of both centrifugal and radial acceleration. Using a somatosensory task to measure roll tilt perception, we found substantial differences in tilt perception during the two motion paradigms. Because the primary difference between the two motion paradigms was the presence of roll canal cues during roll tilt trials, these perceptual differences suggest that canal cues influence tilt perception. Specifically, rotational cues provided by the semicircular canals help the CNS resolve ambiguous otolith cues during head tilt, yielding more accurate tilt perception.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. A. Rader, C. M. Oman, and D. M. Merfeld Motion Perception During Variable-Radius Swing Motion in Darkness J Neurophysiol, October 1, 2009; 102(4): 2232 - 2244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [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.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]