Literature DB >> 21298422

The oculogyral illusion: retinal and oculomotor factors.

Jerome Carriot1, A Bryan, P DiZio, J R Lackner.   

Abstract

Subjects in a dark chamber exposed to angular acceleration while viewing a head-fixed target experience motion and displacement of the target relative to their body. Competing explanations of this phenomenon, known as the oculogyral illusion, have attributed it to the suppression of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) or to retinal slip. In the dark, the VOR evokes compensatory eye movements in the direction opposite to body acceleration. A head-fixed visual target will tend to suppress these eye movements. The VOR suppression hypothesis attributes the oculogyral illusion to the signals that prevent reflexive deviation of the eyes from the target thus resulting in apparent target displacement in the direction of acceleration. The retinal slip hypothesis attributes the illusion to inadequate fixation of the target with the eyes being involuntarily deviated in the direction opposite acceleration, the retinal slip being interpreted as target displacement in the direction of acceleration. Another possibility is that the illusion could arise from a change in the representation of the perceived head midline. To evaluate these three alternative hypotheses, we tested 8 subjects at 4 acceleration rates (2, 10, 20, 30°/s²) in each of three conditions: (a) fixate and point to a target light; (b) fixate to the target light and point to the head midline; (c) look straight ahead in the dark. The displacement magnitude of the oculogyral illusion was least at 2°/s² ≈ 2° and was ≈10° at the other acceleration rates. The presence of the target light significantly attenuated eye movements relative to the dark condition, but eye movements were still present at the 10, 20, and 30°/s² accelerations. The eye velocity profiles in the dark at different acceleration rates did not show a one-to-one inverse mapping to the magnitude of the oculogyral illusion at those rates. The perceived head midline was not significantly displaced at any of the acceleration rates. The oculogyral illusion thus has at least two contributing factors: the suppression of nystagmus at low acceleration rates and at higher acceleration rates, a partial suppression coupled with an integration of the drift of the eyes with respect to the fixation target.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21298422     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-011-2567-5

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


  33 in total

1.  The perception of body orientation after neck-proprioceptive stimulation. Effects of time and of visual cueing.

Authors:  H-O Karnath; E Reich; C Rorden; M Fetter; J Driver
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-01-30       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  VISUAL ILLUSIONS OF MOVEMENT.

Authors:  T C WHITESIDE; A GRAYBIEL; J I NIVEN
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1965-03       Impact factor: 13.501

3.  Stimulus thresholds of the semicircular canals as a function of angular acceleration.

Authors:  A GRAYBIEL; W A KERR; S H BARTLEY
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  1948-01

4.  The effect of angular acceleration on sound localization; the audiogyral illusion.

Authors:  B CLARK; A GRAYBIEL
Journal:  J Psychol       Date:  1949-07

5.  Visual object localization through vestibular and neck inputs. 2: Updating off-mid-sagittal-plane target positions.

Authors:  J Blouin; G M Gauthier; J L Vercher
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  1997 Mar-Jun       Impact factor: 2.435

Review 6.  Head-eye co-ordination: visual and nonvisual mechanisms of vestibulo-ocular reflex slow-phase modification.

Authors:  G R Barnes
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.453

7.  Effects of visual and non-visual mechanisms on the vestibulo-ocular reflex during pseudo-random head movements in man.

Authors:  G R Barnes; R D Eason
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 5.182

8.  Effects of angular acceleration on man: thresholds for the perception of rotation and the oculogyral illusion.

Authors:  B Clark; J D Stewart
Journal:  Aerosp Med       Date:  1969-09

9.  Eye movements cannot explain vibration-induced visual motion and motion aftereffect.

Authors:  Tatjana Seizova-Cajic; W L Ben Sachtler; Ian S Curthoys
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-03-23       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Perceptual and nystagmic thresholds of vestibular function in yaw.

Authors:  B M Seemungal; I A Gunaratne; I O Fleming; M A Gresty; A M Bronstein
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.435

View more
  7 in total

1.  Thresholds for self-motion perception in roll without and with visual fixation target--the visualvestibular interaction effect.

Authors:  Ognyan I Kolev
Journal:  Funct Neurol       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

2.  Learning dynamic control of body yaw orientation.

Authors:  Vivekanand Pandey Vimal; James R Lackner; Paul DiZio
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Balancing bistable perception during self-motion.

Authors:  Michiel van Elk; Olaf Blanke
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Direction specific biases in human visual and vestibular heading perception.

Authors:  Benjamin T Crane
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Eye Movements in Darkness Modulate Self-Motion Perception.

Authors:  Ivar Adrianus H Clemens; Luc P J Selen; Antonella Pomante; Paul R MacNeilage; W Pieter Medendorp
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2017-01-25

6.  Aging and Sensory Substitution in a Virtual Navigation Task.

Authors:  S Levy-Tzedek; S Maidenbaum; A Amedi; J Lackner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Treatment of vestibular disorders with weak asymmetric base-in prisms: An hypothesis with a focus on Ménière's disease.

Authors:  Jelte E Bos; Astrid J A Lubeck; P Eric M Vente
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 2.354

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.