Dynamic effects on the subjective visual vertical after roll rotation

Journal of Neurophysiology

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 657-669

  Lorincz, Erika N ^a   Hess, Bernhard J M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCELERATION; ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MOVEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DARKNESS; GRAVITY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; OTOLITH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMICIRCULAR CANAL; TILTING; TIME; VESTIBULAR STIMULATION; VISION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; ORIENTATION; PHYSIOLOGY; ROTATION; VESTIBULE; VESTIBULOOCULAR REFLEX;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; GRAVITATION; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MOTION PERCEPTION; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; ORIENTATION; OTOLITHIC MEMBRANE; REFLEX, VESTIBULO-OCULAR; ROTATION; SEMICIRCULAR CANALS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 55249126153     PISSN: 00223077     EISSN: 15221598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/jn.01248.2007     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Anderson-Sprecher R. Model comparisons and R2. Am Statistician 48: 113-117, 1994.
2. Aubert H. Eine scheinbare bedeutende Drehung von Objecten bei Neigung des Kopfes nach rechts oder links. Arch Pathol Anat 20: 381-393, 1861.
3. Dayan P, Abbott LF. Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
4. De Vrijer M, Medendorp WP, Van Gisbergen JA. Shared computational mechanism for tilt compensation accounts for biased verticality percepts in motion and pattern vision. J Neurophysiol 99: 915-930, 2008.
5. Dichgans J, Diener HC, Brandt T. Optokinetic-graviceptive interaction in different head positions. Acta Otolaryngol 78: 391-398, 1974.
6. Dichgans J, Held R, Young LR, Brandt T. Moving visual scenes influence the apparent direction of gravity. Science 178: 1217-1219, 1972.
7. Eggert T. Der Einfluss orientierter Texturen auf die subjective Vertikale und seine systemtheoretische Analyse (PhD dissertation). Munich, Germany: Munich Technical Univ., 1998.
8. Fernandez C, Goldberg JM. Physiology of peripheral neurons innervating otolith organs of the squirrel monkey. I. Response to static tilts and to long-duration centrifugal force. J Neurophysiol 39: 970-984, 1976a.
9. Fernandez C, Goldberg JM. Physiology of peripheral neurons innervating otolith organs of the squirrel monkey. II. Directional selectivity and force-response relations. J Neurophysiol 39: 985-995, 1976b.
10. Fernandez C, Goldberg JM. Physiology of peripheral neurons innervating otolith organs of the squirrel monkey. III. Response dynamics. J Neurophysiol 39: 996-1008, 1976c.
11. Glasauer S. Interaction of semicircular canals and otoliths in the processing structure of the subjective zenith. Ann NY Acad Sci 656: 847-849, 1992.
12. Hess BJ. Three-dimensional head angular velocity detection from otolith afferent signals. Biol Cybern 67: 323-333, 1992.
13. Hess BJ. Sensorimotor transformations in spatial orientation relative to gravity. In: Spatial Processing in Navigation and Perception, edited by Mast F, Jäncke L. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2006, p. 281-300.
14. Hoppenbrouwers M, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH. Suppression of the E-effect during the subjective visual vertical test. Neuroreport 15: 325-327, 2004.
15. Jaggi-Schwarz K, Hess BJ. Influence of dynamic tilts on the perception of earth-vertical. Exp Brain Res 149: 340-350, 2003.
16. Jaggi-Schwarz K, Ortega M, Hess BJ. Reciprocal error behavior in estimated body position and subjective visual vertical. Exp Brain Res 150: 122-125, 2003.
17. Kaptein RG, Van Gisbergen JA. Interpretation of a discontinuity in the sense of verticality at large body tilt. J Neurophysiol 91: 2205-2214, 2004.
18. Kaptein RG, Van Gisbergen JA. Nature of the transition between two modes of external space perception in tilted subjects. J Neurophysiol 93: 3356-3369, 2005.
19. Kim S-H, Cohen AS. On the Behrens-Fisher problem: a review. J Educ Behav Statistics 23: 356-377, 1998.
20. Lorincz EN, Hess BJ. Do perception and postrotatory vestibulo-ocular reflex share the same gravity reference? J Gravit Physiol 12: P-25-P-26, 2005.
21. MacNeilage PR, Banks MS, Berger DR, Bülthoff HH. A Bayesian model of the disambiguation of gravitoinertial force by visual cues. Exp Brain Res 179: 263-290, 2007.
22. Mast F, Jarchow T. Perceived body position and the visual horizontal. Brain Res Bull 40: 393-397, 1996.
23. Merfeld DM, Park S, Gianna-Poulin C, Black FO, 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.
24. Merfeld DM, Park S, Gianna-Poulin C, Black FO, Wood S. Vestibular perception and action employ qualitatively different mechanisms. II. VOR and perceptual responses during combined Tilt&Translation. J Neurophysiol 94: 199-205, 2005b.
25. Merfeld DM, Zupan LH, 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.
26. Mittelstaedt H. A new solution to the problem of the subjective vertical. Naturwissenschaften 70: 272-281, 1983.
27. Mittelstaedt H. The role of the otoliths in the perception of the orientation of self and world to the vertical. Zool Jb Physiol 95: 419-425, 1991.
28. Mittelstaedt H. Somatic versus vestibular gravity reception in man. Ann NY Acad Sci 656: 124-139, 1992.
29. Müller GE. Über das Aubertsche Phänomen. Z Sinnesphysiol 49: 109-246, 1916.
30. Palla A, Bockisch CJ, Bergamin O, Straumann D. Dissociated hysteresis of static ocular counterroll in humans. J Neurophysiol 95: 2222-2232, 2006.
31. Park S, Gianna-Poulin C, Black FO, Wood S, Merfeld DM. Roll rotation cues influence roll tilt perception assayed using a somatosensory technique. J Neurophysiol 96: 486-491, 2006.
32. Pavlou M, Wijnberg N, Faldon ME, Bronstein AM. Effect of semicircular canal stimulation on the perception of the visual vertical. J Neurophysiol 90: 622-630, 2003.
33. Press WH, Teucholsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP. Numerical Recipes in C++. The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.
34. Schöne H. On the role of gravity in human spatial orientation. Aerosp Med 35: 764-772, 1964.
35. Schöne H, Lechner-Steinleitner S. The effect of preceding tilt on the perceived vertical. Hysteresis in perception of the vertical. Acta Otolaryngol 85: 68-73, 1978.
36. Stockwell CW, Guedry FE Jr. The effect of semicircular canal stimulation during tilting on the subsequent perception of the visual vertical. Acta Otolaryngol 70: 170-175, 1970.
37. Udo de Haes HA, Schöne H. Interaction between statolith organs and semicircular canals on apparent vertical and nystagmus. Investigations on the effectiveness of the statolith organs. Acta Otolaryngol 69: 25-31, 1970.
38. Van Beuzekom AD, Van Gisbergen JA. Properties of the internal representation of gravity inferred from spatial-direction and body-tilt estimates. J Neurophysiol 84: 11-27, 2000.
39. Von Holst E, Grisebach E. Einfluss des Bogengangsystems auf die "subjektive Lotrechte" beim Menschen. Naturwissenschaften 38: 67-68, 1951.
40. Wade SW, Curthoys IS. The effect of ocular torsional position on perception of the roll-tilt of visual stimuli. Vision Res 37: 1071-1078, 1997.
41. Young LR, Oman CM, Dichgans JM. Influence of head orientation on visually induced pitch and roll sensation. Aviat Space Environ Med 46: 264-268, 1975.