Vestibular, optokinetic, and cognitive contribution to the guidance of passive self-rotation toward instructed targets

We ask how vestibular and optokinetic information is combined ("fused") when human subjects who are being passively rotated while viewing a stationary optokinetic pattern try to tell when they have reached a previously instructed angular displacement ("targeting task"). Inevitably such a task entices subjects to also draw on cognitive mechanisms such as past experience and contextual expectations. Specifically, because we used rotations of constant angular velocity, we suspected that they would resort, consciously or unconsciously, to extrapolation strategies even though they had no explicit knowledge of this fact. To study these issues, we presented the following six conditions to subjects standing on a rotatable platform inside an optokinetic drum: V, pure vestibular (passive rotation in darkness); O, pure optokinetic (observer motionless, drum rotating); VO, combined (passive rotation while viewing stationary drum); Oe, optokinetic extrapolation (similar to O, but drum visible only during first 90 degrees of rotation; thereafter subjects extrapolate the further course in their minds); VOe, combined extrapolation (similar to VO, but drum visible only during first 90 degrees ); AI, auditory imagination (rotation presented only metaphorically; observers imagine a drum rotation using the rising pitch of a tone as cue). In all conditions, angular velocities ( v(C)) of 15, 30, or 60 degrees /s were used (randomized presentation), and observers were to indicate when angular displacement (of the self in space or relative to the drum) had reached the instructed magnitude ("desired displacement", D(D); range 90-900 degrees ). Performance was analyzed in terms of the targeting gain ( G(T) = physical displacement at time of subjects' indication / D(D)) and variability (% E(R) = percentage absolute deviation from a subject's mean gain). In all six conditions, the global mean of G(T) (across v(C) and D(D)) was remarkably close to veracity, ranging from 0.95 (V) to 1.06 (O). A more detailed analysis of the gain revealed a trend of G(T) to be larger with fast than with slow rotations, reflecting an underestimation of fast and an overestimation of slow rotation. This effect varied significantly between conditions: it was smallest in VO, had intermediate values with the monomodal conditions V and O, and also with VOe, and was largest in Oe and AI. Variability was similar for all velocities, but depended significantly on the condition: it was smallest in VO, of intermediate magnitude in O, VOe, Oe, and largest in V and AI. Additional experiments with conditions V, O, and VO in which subjects repetitively indicated displacement increments of 90 degrees, up to a subjective displacement of 1080 degrees, yielded similar results and suggest, in addition, that the displacement perceptions measured at the beginning and during later phases of the rotation are correlated. With respect to the displacement perception during optokinetic stimulation, they also show that the gain and its variability are similar whether subjects feel stationary and see a rotating pattern, or feel rotated and see a stationary pattern (circular vection). We conclude that the vestibular and optokinetic information guiding the subjects' navigation toward an instructed target is not fused by straightforward averaging. Rather the subjects' internal velocity representation (which ultimately determines G(T)) appears to be a weighted average of (1) whatever sensory information is available and of (2) a cognitive default value reflecting the subjects' experiences and expectations. The less secure the sensory information (only one source as in V or O, additional degrading as in Oe or AI), the larger the weight of the default value. Vice versa, the better the information (e.g., two independent sources as in VO), the more the actual velocity and not the default value determines displacement perception. Moreover, we suggest that subjects intuitively proceeded from the notion of a constant velocity rotation, and therefore tended to carry on the perception built up during the beghe perception built up during the beginning of a rotation or, in the case of vestibular navigation, to compensate for the decaying vestibular cue by means of an internal recovery mechanism.

Visual object localisation in space. Interaction of retinal, eye position, vestibular and neck proprioceptive information

Perceptual updating of the location of visual targets in space after intervening eye, head or trunk movements requires an interaction between several afferent signals (visual, oculomotor efference copy, vestibular, proprioceptive). The nature of the interaction is still a matter of debate. To address this problem, we presented subjects (n=6) in the dark with a target (light spot) at various horizontal eccentricities (up to +/-20 degrees ) relative to the initially determined subjective straight-ahead direction (SSA). After a memory period of 12 s in complete darkness, the target reappeared at a random position and subjects were to reproduce its previous location in space using a remote control. For both the presentation and the reproduction of the target's location, subjects either kept their gaze in the SSA (retinal viewing condition) or fixated the eccentric target (visuo-oculomotor). Three experimental series were performed: A, "visual-only series": reproduction of the target's location in space was found to be close to ideal, independently of viewing condition; estimation curves (reproduced vs presented positions) showed intercepts approximately 0 degrees and slopes approximately 1; B, "visual-vestibular series": during the memory period, subjects were horizontally rotated to the right or left by 10 degrees or 18 degrees at 0.8-Hz or 0.1-Hz dominant frequency. Following the 0.8-Hz body rotation, reproduction was close to ideal, while at 0.1 Hz it was partially shifted along with the body, in line with the known vestibular high-pass characteristics. Additionally, eccentricity of target presentation reduced the slopes of the estimation curves (less than 1); C, "visual-vestibular-neck series": a shift toward the trunk also occurred after low-frequency neck stimulation (trunk rotated about stationary head). When vestibular and neck stimuli were combined (independent head and trunk rotations), their effects summed linearly, such that the errors cancelled each other during head rotation on the stationary trunk. Variability of responses was always lowest for targets presented at SSA, irrespective of intervening eye, head or trunk rotations. We conclude that: (1) subjects referenced "space" to pre-rotatory SSA and that the memory trace of the target's location in space was not altered during the memory period; and that (2) they used internal estimates of eye, head and trunk displacements with respect to space to match current target position with the memory trace during reproduction; these estimates would be obtained by inverting the physical coordinate transformations produced by these displacements. We present a model which is able to describe these operations and whose predictions closely parallel the experimental results. In this model the estimate of head rotation in space is not obtained directly from the vestibular head-in-space signal, but from a vestibular estimate of the kinematic state of the body support.

Vestibular memory-contingent saccades involve somatosensory input from the body support

Humans use vestibular head-in-space information when redirecting gaze towards remembered target location in space. This study shows that neck input is also involved. Normal subjects performed saccades towards remembered locations in space of a previously seen target following passive horizontal rotations of the head or trunk. Saccades based on vestibular input alone fell short at low stimulus frequencies. Addition of neck input modified the responses, making them more accurate when the head was rotated on the stationary trunk. The results support a concept according to which vestibular input is channeled via proprioceptive coordinate transformations through the haptically perceived body support before yielding a sense of head motion in space. The loop is also involved in the saccadic gaze mechanism.

What is straight ahead to a patient with torticollis?

Vestibular and neck proprioceptive signals are known to be used in judging the locations of objects in space and relative to the body. Given that these signals are asymmetric in patients with spasmodic torticollis, one would expect such patients to have abnormal spatial perception. We tested this idea by measuring patients' perception of visual straight ahead (VSA) under various conditions: with the body in its primary position, i.e. with the head and trunk as closely aligned as possible, and after well defined passive rotations of the head and/or trunk. In the primary body position, patients' VSA direction showed considerable variations which were similar, however, to those of normal subjects; it was independent of torticollis direction, of the head torque it produced, and of the weak spontaneous nystagmus recorded in seven of the 10 patients. After whole-body rotations, i.e. where head and trunk underwent the same motion, the VSA was shifted in both patients and normal subjects, and in both groups the shift was symmetrical after rotations to the right or left. After motions where the trunk rotated under the stationary head (neck proprioceptive stimulation) or the head on the stationary trunk (combined vestibular and neck stimulus), the VSAs of normal subjects coincided rather well with their head midsagittal planes, whereas the VSAs of patients were shifted considerably towards the trunk, again in a symmetrical way. We suggest two mechanisms to explain the findings in patients: (i) a central compensation which restores symmetry of the afferent inflow in the patients (unlike the motor efference); (ii) shifting of the reference for the VSA from the head towards the trunk, because the trunk is a more reliable egocentric reference than the head in the patients. Our findings do not support the assumption that asymmetries in afferent inflow are responsible for the asymmetry of motor output in spasmodic torticollis.