Literature DB >> 19571203

Gravity dependence of subjective visual vertical variability.

A A Tarnutzer1, C Bockisch, D Straumann, I Olasagasti.   

Abstract

The brain integrates sensory input from the otolith organs, the semicircular canals, and the somatosensory and visual systems to determine self-orientation relative to gravity. Only the otoliths directly sense the gravito-inertial force vector and therefore provide the major input for perceiving static head-roll relative to gravity, as measured by the subjective visual vertical (SVV). Intraindividual SVV variability increases with head roll, which suggests that the effectiveness of the otolith signal is roll-angle dependent. We asked whether SVV variability reflects the spatial distribution of the otolithic sensors and the otolith-derived acceleration estimate. Subjects were placed in different roll orientations (0-360 degrees, 15 degrees steps) and asked to align an arrow with perceived vertical. Variability was minimal in upright, increased with head-roll peaking around 120-135 degrees, and decreased to intermediate values at 180 degrees. Otolith-dependent variability was modeled by taking into consideration the nonuniform distribution of the otolith afferents and their nonlinear firing rate. The otolith-derived estimate was combined with an internal bias shifting the estimated gravity-vector toward the body-longitudinal. Assuming an efficient otolith estimator at all roll angles, peak variability of the model matched our data; however, modeled variability in upside-down and upright positions was very similar, which is at odds with our findings. By decreasing the effectiveness of the otolith estimator with increasing roll, simulated variability matched our experimental findings better. We suggest that modulations of SVV precision in the roll plane are related to the properties of the otolith sensors and to central computational mechanisms that are not optimally tuned for roll-angles distant from upright.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19571203     DOI: 10.1152/jn.00007.2008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  50 in total

1.  Different damping responses explain vertical endpoint error differences between visual conditions.

Authors:  Jan M Hondzinski; Chelsea M Soebbing; Allyson E French; Sara A Winges
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  [The subjective perception of the vertical-a valuable parameter for determination of peripheral vestibular disorder in Menière's disease in the chronic phase?]

Authors:  L J Voß; S I Zabaneh; M Hölzl; H Olze; K Stölzel
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Gravity dependence of the effect of optokinetic stimulation on the subjective visual vertical.

Authors:  Bryan K Ward; Christopher J Bockisch; Nicoletta Caramia; Giovanni Bertolini; Alexander Andrea Tarnutzer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Age-related reweighting of visual and vestibular cues for vertical perception.

Authors:  Bart B G T Alberts; Luc P J Selen; W Pieter Medendorp
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  How stable is perceived direction of gravity over extended periods in darkness?

Authors:  A A Tarnutzer; D P Fernando; A G Lasker; D S Zee
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Visually guided adjustments of body posture in the roll plane.

Authors:  A A Tarnutzer; C J Bockisch; D Straumann
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Static Subjective Visual Vertical in Healthy Volunteers: The Effects of Different Preset Angle Deviations and Test-Retest Variability.

Authors:  J Venhovens; J Meulstee; W I M Verhagen
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2016-03-17

8.  Altered head orientation patterns in children with idiopathic scoliosis in conditions with sensory conflict.

Authors:  P N Eijgelaar; F H Wapstra; E Otten; A G Veldhuizen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-08-17       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Body orientation contributes to modelling the effects of gravity for target interception in humans.

Authors:  Barbara La Scaleia; Francesco Lacquaniti; Myrka Zago
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 5.182

10.  Precision and accuracy of the subjective haptic vertical in the roll plane.

Authors:  Jeanine R Schuler; Christopher J Bockisch; Dominik Straumann; Alexander A Tarnutzer
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 3.288

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.