Literature DB >> 16463151

Subjective somatosensory vertical during dynamic tilt is dependent on task, inertial condition, and multisensory concordance.

W G Wright1, S Glasauer.   

Abstract

To investigate how visual and vestibular cues are integrated for the perception of gravity during passive self-motion, we measured the ability to maintain a handheld object vertical relative to gravity without visual feedback during sinusoidal roll-tilt stimulation. Visual input, either concordant or discordant with actual dynamic roll-tilt, was delivered by a head-mounted display showing the laboratory. The four visual conditions were darkness, visual-vestibular concordance, stationary visual scene, and a visual scene 180 degrees phase-shifted relative to actual tilt. Tilt-indication performance using a solid, cylindrical joystick was better in the presence of concordant visual input relative to the other visual conditions. In addition, we compared performance when indicating the vertical by the joystick or a full glass of water. Subjects indicated the direction of gravity significantly better when holding the full glass of water than the joystick. Matching the inertial characteristics, including fluid properties, of the handheld object to the glass of water did not improve performance. There was no effect of visual input on tilt performance when using the glass of water to indicate gravitational vertical. The gain of object tilt motion did not change with roll-tilt amplitude and frequency (+/-7.5 degrees at 0.25 Hz, +/-10 degrees at 0.16 Hz, and +/-20 degrees at 0.08 Hz), however, the phase of object tilt relative to subject tilt showed significant phase-leads at the highest frequency tested (0.25 Hz). Comparison of the object and visual effects observed suggest that the task-dependent behavior change may be due to an attentional shift and/or shift in strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16463151     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0347-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  30 in total

1.  Properties of the internal representation of gravity inferred from spatial-direction and body-tilt estimates.

Authors:  A D Van Beuzekom; J A Van Gisbergen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Cognitive suppression of tilt sensations during linear horizontal self-motion in the dark.

Authors:  A H Wertheim; B S Mesland; W Bles
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.490

3.  Haptic subjective vertical shows context dependence: task and vision play a role during dynamic tilt stimulation.

Authors:  William Geoffrey Wright; Stefan Glasauer
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.691

4.  Neural processing of gravito-inertial cues in humans. IV. Influence of visual rotational cues during roll optokinetic stimuli.

Authors:  L H Zupan; D M Merfeld
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Sensorimotor integration in human postural control.

Authors:  R J Peterka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Linear acceleration perception: frequency dependence of the hilltop illusion.

Authors:  S Glasauer
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  1995

7.  Subjective postural vertical inferred from vestibular-optokinetic vs. proprioceptive cues.

Authors:  A Bisdorff; A Bronstein; M Gresty; C Wolsley
Journal:  Brain Res Bull       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.077

8.  Perceived orientation in free-fall depends on visual, postural, and architectural factors.

Authors:  J R Lackner; A Graybiel
Journal:  Aviat Space Environ Med       Date:  1983-01

9.  Torsional vestibulo-ocular reflex during whole-body oscillation in the upright and the supine position. I. Responses in healthy human subjects.

Authors:  A Schmid-Priscoveanu; D Straumann; A A Kori
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Neural processing of gravito-inertial cues in humans. II. Influence of the semicircular canals during eccentric rotation.

Authors:  D M Merfeld; L H Zupan; C A Gifford
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 2.714

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Constructive perception of self-motion.

Authors:  Jan E Holly; Gin McCollum
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.435

2.  The time constant of the somatogravic illusion.

Authors:  B J Correia Grácio; K N de Winkel; E L Groen; M Wentink; J E Bos
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-11-04       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Time to reconfigure balancing behaviour in man: changing visual condition while riding a continuously moving platform.

Authors:  Alessandro Marco De Nunzio; Marco Schieppati
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-09-30       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Gravity estimation and verticality perception.

Authors:  Christopher J Dakin; Ari Rosenberg
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2018

5.  Compensatory manual motor responses while object wielding during combined linear visual and physical roll tilt stimulation.

Authors:  W Geoffrey Wright; Erich Schneider; Stefan Glasauer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-10-02       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 6.  Using virtual reality to augment perception, enhance sensorimotor adaptation, and change our minds.

Authors:  W Geoffrey Wright
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2014-04-08

7.  The impact of external and internal focus of attention on visual dependence and EEG alpha oscillations during postural control.

Authors:  Lei Ma; Peter J Marshall; W Geoffrey Wright
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 5.208

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.