Roll rotation cues influence roll tilt perception assayed using a somatosensory technique

Journal of Neurophysiology

Volumn 96, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 486-491

  Park, Sukyung ^a,b   Gianna Poulin, Claire ^c   Black, F O ^c   Wood, Scott ^c   Merfeld, Daniel M ^a,d  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

^c LEGACY RESEARCH   (United States)

^d MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CENTRIFUGE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GRAVITY; HEAD TILTING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MOTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; NERVOUS SYSTEM; NORMAL HUMAN; OTOLITH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROTATION; SOMATOSENSORY SYSTEM; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VESTIBULOOCULAR REFLEX;

ADULT; EAR CANAL; EVOKED POTENTIALS, SOMATOSENSORY; FEMALE; GRAVITY PERCEPTION; HEAD-DOWN TILT; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MOTION PERCEPTION; MUSCULOSKELETAL EQUILIBRIUM; OTOLITHIC MEMBRANE; ROTATION; SOMATOSENSORY CORTEX;

EID: 33745756538     PISSN: 00223077     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/jn.01163.2005     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Angelaki D, McHenry M, Dickman JD, Newlands S, and Hess B. Computation of inertial motion: Neural strategies to resolve ambiguous otolith information. J Neurosci 19: 316-327, 1999.
2. Benson AJ, Spencer MB, and Stott JR. Thresholds for the detection of the direction of whole-body, linear movement in the horizontal plane. Aviat Space Environ Med 57: 1088-1096, 1986.
3. Clark B and Graybiel A. Contributing factors in the perception of the oculogravic illusion. Am J Psychol 76: 18-27, 1963.
4. Clement G, Maciel F, and Deguine O. Perception of tilt and ocular torsion of normal human subjects during eccentric rotation. Otol Neurotol 23: 958-966, 2002.
5. Clement G, Moore ST, Raphan T, and Cohen B. Perception of tilt (somatogravic illusion) in response to sustained linear acceleration during space flight. Exp Brain Res 138: 410-418, 2001.
6. Dichgans J, Held R, Young LR, and Brandt T. Moving visual scenes influence the apparent direction of gravity. Science 178: 1217-1219, 1972.
7. Glasauer S. Interaction of semicircular canals and otoliths in the processing structure of the subjective zenith. Ann NY Acad Sci 656: 847-849, 1992.
8. Glasauer S. Linear acceleration perception: frequency dependence of the hilltop illusion. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 520: 37-40, 1995.
9. Graybiel A and Brown R. The delay in visual reorientation following exposure to a change in direction of resultant force on a human centrifuge. J Gen Psychol 45: 143-150, 1951.
10. Graybiel A and Clark B. Validity of the oculogravic illusion as a specific indicator of otolith function. Aerosp Med 36: 1173-1181, 1965.
11. Israël I and Berthoz A. Contribution of the otoliths to the calculation of linear displacements. J Neurophysiol 62: 247-263, 1989.
12. Jaggi-Schwarz K and Hess BJ. Influence of dynamic tilts on the perception of earth-vertical. Exp Brain Res 149: 340-350, 2003.
13. Jaggi-Schwarz K, Ortega M, and Hess BJ. Reciprocal error behavior in estimated body position and subjective visual vertical. Exp Brain Res 150: 122-125, 2003.
14. Kaptein RG and Van Gisbergen JA. Interpretation of a discontinuity in the sense of verticality at large body tilt. J Neurophysiol 2003.
15. Kaptein RG and Van Gisbergen JA. Nature of the transition between two modes of external space perception in tilted subjects. J Neurophysiol 93: 3356-3369, 2005.
16. Mast F and Jarchow T. Perceived body position and the visual horizontal. Brain Res Bull 40: 393-397; discussion 397-398, 1996.
17. Mayne R. A systems concept of the vestibular organs. In: Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Vestibular System. Psychophysics, Applied Aspects and General Interpretations, edited by Kornhuber H. Berlin-New York: Springer-Verlag, 1974, vol. VI, part 2, p. 493-580.
18. Melvill Jones G and Young LR. Subjective detection of vertical acceleration: a velocity dependent response? Acta Otolaryngol 85: 45-53, 1978.
19. Merfeld DM. Modeling the vestibulo-ocular reflex of the squirrel monkey during eccentric rotation and roll tilt. Experimental Brain Research 106: 123-134, 1995.
20. Merfeld DM, Park S, Gianna-Poulin C, Black FO, and Wood S. Vestibular perception and action employ qualitatively different mechanisms. I. Frequency response of VOR and perceptual responses during translation and tilt. J Neurophysiol 94: 186-198, 2005a.
21. Merfeld DM, Park S, Gianna-Poulin C, Black FO, and Wood S. Vestibular perception and action employ qualitatively different mechanisms. II. VOR and perceptual responses during combined tilt and translation. J Neurophysiol 94: 199-205, 2005b.
22. Merfeld D, Teiwes W, Clarke A, Scherer H, and Young L. The dynamic contributions of the otolith organs to human ocular torsion. Exp Brain Res 110: 315-321, 1996.
23. Merfeld DM and Young LR. The vestibulo-ocular reflex of the squirrel monkey during eccentric rotation and roll tilt. Exp. Brain Res. 106: 111-122, 1995.
24. Merfeld DM and Zupan LH. Neural processing of gravitoinertial cues in humans. III. Modeling tilt and translation responses. J Neurophysiol 87: 819-833, 2002.
25. Merfeld D and Zupan L. Influence of rotational cues on the neural processing of gravito-inertial force. In: Levels of Perception, edited by Harris L and Jenkin L. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2003, p. 341-373.
26. Merfeld DM, Zupan LH, and Gifford CA. Neural processing of gravito-inertial cues in humans. II. Influence of the semicircular canals during eccentric rotation. J Neurophysiol 85: 1648-1660, 2001.
27. Merfeld D, Zupan L, and Peterka R. Humans use internal models to estimate gravity and linear acceleration. Nature 398: 615-618, 1999.
28. Mittelstaedt H. Somatic versus vestibular gravity reception in man. Ann NY Acad Sci 656: 124-139, 1992.
29. Paige G and Tomko D. Eye movement responses to linear head motion in the squirrel monkey. II. Visual-vestibular interactions and kinematic considerations. J Neurophysiol 65: 1183-1196, 1991.
30. Parker DE, Wood DL, Gulledge WL, and Goodrich RL. Self-motion magnitude estimation during linear oscillation: changes with head orientation and following fatigue. Aviat Space Environ Med 50: 1112-1121, 1979.
31. Seidman S, Telford L, and Paige G. Tilt perception during dynamic linear acceleration. Exp Brain Res 119: 307-314, 1998.
32. Seidman SH and Paige GD. Perception and eye movement during low-frequency centripetal acceleration. Ann NY Acad Sci 781: 693-695, 1996.
33. Stevens SS. Perceptual Magnitude and Its Judgement. New York: Academic, 1974.
34. Stockwell C and Guedry F. The effect of semicircular canal stimulation during tilting on the subsequent perception of the visual vertical. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 70: 170-175, 1970.
35. Telford L, Seidman S, and Paige G. Dynamics of squirrel monkey linear vestibuloocular reflex and interactions with fixation distance. J Neurophysiol 78: 1775-1790, 1997.
36. Wade S and Curthoys I. The effect of ocular torsional position on perception of the roll-tilt of visual stimuli. Vision Res 37: 1071-1078, 1997.
37. Yong N, Seidman SH, and Paige GD. Multi-modal was underlying the perception of translational motion. 31st Annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, 2001, 298.17.
38. Zupan LH and Merfeld DM. Neural processing of gravito-inertial cues in humans. IV. Influence of visual rotational cues during roll optokinetic stimuli. J Neurophysiol 89: 390-400, 2003.