Literature DB >> 33510611

Multisensory Interactions in Head and Body Centered Perception of Verticality.

Ksander N De Winkel1,2, Ellen Edel2, Riender Happee1, Heinrich H Bülthoff2.   

Abstract

Percepts of verticality are thought to be constructed as a weighted average of multisensory inputs, but the observed weights differ considerably between studies. In the present study, we evaluate whether this can be explained by differences in how visual, somatosensory and proprioceptive cues contribute to representations of the Head In Space (HIS) and Body In Space (BIS). Participants (10) were standing on a force plate on top of a motion platform while wearing a visualization device that allowed us to artificially tilt their visual surroundings. They were presented with (in)congruent combinations of visual, platform, and head tilt, and performed Rod & Frame Test (RFT) and Subjective Postural Vertical (SPV) tasks. We also recorded postural responses to evaluate the relation between perception and balance. The perception data shows that body tilt, head tilt, and visual tilt affect the HIS and BIS in both experimental tasks. For the RFT task, visual tilt induced considerable biases (≈ 10° for 36° visual tilt) in the direction of the vertical expressed in the visual scene; for the SPV task, participants also adjusted platform tilt to correct for illusory body tilt induced by the visual stimuli, but effects were much smaller (≈ 0.25°). Likewise, postural data from the SPV task indicate participants slightly shifted their weight to counteract visual tilt (0.3° for 36° visual tilt). The data reveal a striking dissociation of visual effects between the two tasks. We find that the data can be explained well using a model where percepts of the HIS and BIS are constructed from direct signals from head and body sensors, respectively, and indirect signals based on body and head signals but corrected for perceived neck tilt. These findings show that perception of the HIS and BIS derive from the same sensory signals, but see profoundly different weighting factors. We conclude that observations of different weightings between studies likely result from querying of distinct latent constructs referenced to the body or head in space.
Copyright © 2021 De Winkel, Edel, Happee and Bülthoff.

Entities:  

Keywords:  multisensory perception and integration; postural vertical; proprioception; rod and frame; somatosensation; vertical; vision

Year:  2021        PMID: 33510611      PMCID: PMC7835726          DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.599226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Neurosci        ISSN: 1662-453X            Impact factor:   4.677


  60 in total

1.  Multisensory fusion: simultaneous re-weighting of vision and touch for the control of human posture.

Authors:  Kelvin S Oie; Tim Kiemel; John J Jeka
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2002-06

2.  Perception of the postural vertical in normals and subjects with labyrinthine defects.

Authors:  B CLARK; A GRAYBIEL
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1963-05

3.  The perception of the vertical; visual and non-labyrinthine cues.

Authors:  C W MANN; N H BERTHELOT-BERRY; H J DAUTERIVE
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1949-08

Review 4.  Enhancing visual cues to orientation: suggestions for space travelers and the elderly.

Authors:  Laurence R Harris; Michael Jenkin; Richard T Dyde; Heather Jenkin
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.453

5.  The perception of verticality in lunar and Martian gravity conditions.

Authors:  Ksander N de Winkel; Gilles Clément; Eric L Groen; Peter J Werkhoven
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  The distinction between the rod-and-frame illusion and the rod-and-frame test.

Authors:  P M Wenderoth
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1974       Impact factor: 1.490

7.  Multisensory processing in spatial orientation: an inverse probabilistic approach.

Authors:  Ivar A H Clemens; Maaike De Vrijer; Luc P J Selen; Jan A M Van Gisbergen; W Pieter Medendorp
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Asymmetrical representation of body orientation.

Authors:  Michael Barnett-Cowan; Heather L Jenkin; Richard T Dyde; Michael R Jenkin; Laurence R Harris
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Dynamic head-neck stabilization and modulation with perturbation bandwidth investigated using a multisegment neuromuscular model.

Authors:  Riender Happee; Edo de Bruijn; Patrick A Forbes; Frans C T van der Helm
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 2.712

10.  Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.

Authors:  Ksander N de Winkel; Mikhail Katliar; Heinrich H Bülthoff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Individual motion perception parameters and motion sickness frequency sensitivity in fore-aft motion.

Authors:  Tugrul Irmak; Ksander N de Winkel; Daan M Pool; Heinrich H Bülthoff; Riender Happee
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Assessing the contribution of active somatosensory stimulation to self-acceleration perception in dynamic driving simulators.

Authors:  Mattia Bruschetta; Ksander N de Winkel; Enrico Mion; Paolo Pretto; Alessandro Beghi; Heinrich H Bülthoff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.