The subjective vertical and the sense of self orientation during active body tilt

Subjective visual vertical imprecision during lateral head tilt in patients with chronic dizziness

Most prior studies of the subjective visual vertical (SVV) focus on inaccuracy of subjects' SVV responses with the head in an upright position. Here we investigated SVV imprecision during lateral head tilt in patients with chronic dizziness compared to healthy controls. Forty-five dizzy patients and 45 healthy controls underwent SVV testing wearing virtual reality (VR) goggles, sitting upright (0°) and during head tilt in the roll plane (± 30°). Ten trials were completed in each of three static head positions. The SVV inaccuracy and SVV imprecision were analyzed and compared between groups, along with systematic errors during head tilt, i.e., A-effect and E-effect (E-effect is a typical SVV response during head tilts of ± 30°). The SVV imprecision was found to be affected by head position (upright/right head tilt/left head tilt, p < 0.001) and underlying dizziness (dizzy patients/healthy controls, p = 0.005). The SVV imprecision during left head tilt was greater in dizzy patients compared to healthy controls (p = 0.04). With right head tilt, there was a trend towards greater SVV imprecision in dizzy patients (p = 0.08). Dizzy patients were more likely to have bilateral (6.7%) or unilateral (22.2%) A-effect during lateral head tilt than healthy controls (bilateral (0%) or unilateral (6.7%) A-effect, p < 0.01). Greater SVV imprecision in chronically dizzy patients during head tilts may be attributable to increased noise of vestibular sensory afferents or disturbances of multisensory integration. Our findings suggest that SVV imprecision may be a useful clinical parameter of underlying dizziness measurable with bedside SVV testing in VR.

Does somatosensory feedback from the plantar foot sole contribute to verticality perception?

AIM OF THE STUDY

In upright standing, the human foot sole is the only point of contact with the ground conveying information about the pressure distribution under the feet. We examined how the altered somatosensory input from the plantar foot receptors, when standing on a soft surface, affects the subjective estimation of the earth vertical in different sensory contexts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve (12) healthy young females (mean age: 21.8 ± 2.4 years) adjusted the orientation of a visual line (35 × 1.5 cm) representing the roll orientation of a hand-held (attached on a 24.9 × 4 cm cylinder) or head-attached electromagnetic tracking sensor (Nest of Birds, Ascension Technologies Inc., VT. USA, 60 Hz) under two visual conditions (eyes open, eyes closed) while standing on a soft or firm surface. The mean absolute (accuracy) and variable (precision) error in the verticality estimate was depicted in the sensor's roll deviation from the gravitational vertical.

RESULTS

The accuracy and the precision of the estimate decreased in the absence of vision, while standing on the soft surface and when the estimate was provided by an active hand rather than head rotation. The surface effect was significant only in the absence of vision and when the estimate was provided by the hand.

CONCLUSIONS

The contribution of the plantar foot mechanoreceptors to gravity perception is sensory context dependent. Perception of the earth vertical is more accurate when estimated by active head rotation due to the integration of the vestibular and neck proprioceptive afferents.

Vestibular Precision at the Level of Perception, Eye Movements, Posture, and Neurons

Precision and accuracy are two fundamental properties of any system, including the nervous system. Reduced precision (i.e., imprecision) results from the presence of neural noise at each level of sensory, motor, and perceptual processing. This review has three objectives: (1) to show the importance of studying vestibular precision, and specifically that studying accuracy without studying precision ignores fundamental aspects of the vestibular system; (2) to synthesize key hypotheses about precision in vestibular perception, the vestibulo-ocular reflex, posture, and neurons; and (3) to show that groups of studies that are thoughts to be distinct (e.g., perceptual thresholds, subjective visual vertical variability, neuronal variability) are actually "two sides of the same coin" - because the methods used allow results to be related to the standard deviation of a Gaussian distribution describing the underlying neural noise. Vestibular precision varies with age, stimulus amplitude, stimulus frequency, body orientation, motion direction, pathology, medication, and electrical/mechanical vestibular stimulation, but does not vary with sex. The brain optimizes precision during integration of vestibular cues with visual, auditory, and/or somatosensory cues. Since a common concern with precision metrics is time required for testing, we describe approaches to optimize data collection and provide evidence that fatigue and session effects are minimal. Finally, we summarize how precision is an individual trait that is correlated with clinical outcomes in patients as well as with performance in functional tasks like balance. These findings highlight the importance of studying vestibular precision and accuracy, and that knowledge gaps remain.

Effect of head roll-tilt on the subjective visual vertical in healthy participants: Towards better clinical measurement of gravity perception

OBJECTIVE

Gravity perception is an essential function for spatial orientation and postural stability; however, its assessment is not easy. We evaluated the head-tilt perception gain (HTPG, that is, mean perceptual gain [perceived/actual tilt angle] during left or right head roll-tilt conditions) and head-upright subjective visual vertical (SVV) using a simple method developed by us to investigate the characteristics of gravity perception in healthy participants.

METHODS

We measured the SVV and head roll-tilt angle during head roll-tilt within ±30° of vertical in the sitting and standing positions while the participant maintained an upright trunk (sitting, 434 participants; standing, 263 participants). We evaluated the head-upright SVV, HTPG, and laterality of the HTPG.

RESULTS

We determined the reference ranges of the absolute head-upright SVV (<2.5°), HTPG (0.80-1.25), and HTPG laterality (<10%) for the sitting position. The head-upright SVV and HTPG laterality were not influenced by sex or age. However, the HTPG was significantly greater in women than in men and in middle-aged (30-64 years) and elderly (65-88 years) participants than in young participants (18-29 years). The HTPG, but not the head-upright SVV or HTPG laterality, was significantly higher in the standing vs sitting position.

CONCLUSION

The HTPG is a novel parameter of gravity perception involving functions of the peripheral otolith and neck somatosensory systems to the central nervous system. The HTPG in healthy participants is influenced by age and sex in the sitting position and immediately increases after standing to reinforce the righting reflex for unstable posture, which was not seen in the head-upright SVV, previously considered the only parameter.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Time Course of Sensory Substitution for Gravity Sensing in Visual Vertical Orientation Perception following Complete Vestibular Loss

Loss of vestibular function causes severe acute symptoms of dizziness and disorientation, yet the brain can adapt and regain near to normal locomotor and orientation function through sensory substitution. Animal studies quantifying functional recovery have yet been limited to reflexive eye movements. Here, we studied the interplay between vestibular and proprioceptive graviception in macaque monkeys trained in an earth-vertical visual orientation (subjective visual vertical; SVV) task and measured the time course of sensory substitution for gravity perception following complete bilateral vestibular loss (BVL). Graviceptive gain, defined as the ratio of perceived versus actual tilt angle, decreased to 20% immediately following labyrinthectomy, and recovered to nearly prelesion levels with a time constant of approximately three weeks of postsurgery testing. We conclude that proprioception accounts for up to 20% of gravity sensing in normal animals, and is re-weighted to substitute completely perceptual graviception after vestibular loss. We show that these results can be accounted for by an optimal sensory fusion model.

Spatial orientation: Model-based approach to multi-sensory mechanisms

Perception of spatial orientation is generated through multimodal sensory integration. In this process, there are systematic errors with changes in the head or body position, which reflect challenges for the brain in maintaining a common sensory reference frame for spatial orientation. Here, we focus on this multisensory aspect of spatial orientation. We review a Bayesian spatial perception model that can be used as a framework to study sensory contributions to spatial orientation during lateral head tilts and probe neural networks involved in this process.

Psychophysical Evaluation of Sensory Reweighting in Bilateral Vestibulopathy

Perception of spatial orientation is thought to rely on the brain's integration of visual, vestibular, proprioceptive, and somatosensory signals, as well as internal beliefs. When one of these signals breaks down, such as the vestibular signal in bilateral vestibulopathy, patients start compensating by relying more on the remaining cues. How these signals are reweighted in this integration process is difficult to establish, since they cannot be measured in isolation during natural tasks, are inherently noisy, and can be ambiguous or in conflict. Here, we review our recent work, combining experimental psychophysics with a reverse engineering approach, based on Bayesian inference principles, to quantify sensory noise levels and optimal (re)weighting at the individual subject level, in both patients with bilateral vestibular deficits and healthy controls. We show that these patients reweight the remaining sensory information, relying more on visual and other nonvestibular information than healthy controls in the perception of spatial orientation. This quantification approach could improve diagnostics and prognostics of multisensory integration deficits in vestibular patients, and contribute to an evaluation of rehabilitation therapies directed toward specific training programs.

Perception of Upright: Multisensory Convergence and the Role of Temporo-Parietal Cortex

We inherently maintain a stable perception of the world despite frequent changes in the head, eye, and body positions. Such "orientation constancy" is a prerequisite for coherent spatial perception and sensorimotor planning. As a multimodal sensory reference, perception of upright represents neural processes that subserve orientation constancy through integration of sensory information encoding the eye, head, and body positions. Although perception of upright is distinct from perception of body orientation, they share similar neural substrates within the cerebral cortical networks involved in perception of spatial orientation. These cortical networks, mainly within the temporo-parietal junction, are crucial for multisensory processing and integration that generate sensory reference frames for coherent perception of self-position and extrapersonal space transformations. In this review, we focus on these neural mechanisms and discuss (i) neurobehavioral aspects of orientation constancy, (ii) sensory models that address the neurophysiology underlying perception of upright, and (iii) the current evidence for the role of cerebral cortex in perception of upright and orientation constancy, including findings from the neurological disorders that affect cortical function.

Visual perception of upright: Head tilt, visual errors and viewing eye

BACKGROUND

Perception of upright is often assessed by aligning a luminous line to the subjective visual vertical (SVV).

OBJECTIVE

Here we investigated the effects of visual line rotation and viewing eye on SVV responses and whether there was any change with head tilt.

METHODS

SVV was measured using a forced-choice paradigm and by combining the following conditions in 22 healthy subjects: head position (20° left tilt, upright and 20° right tilt), viewing eye (left eye, both eyes and right eye) and direction of visual line rotation (clockwise [CW] and counter clockwise [CCW]).

RESULTS

The accuracy and precision of SVV responses were not different between the viewing eye conditions in all head positions (P> 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis test). The accuracy of SVV responses was % significantly different between the CW and CCW line rotations (p ≈ 0.0001; Kruskal-Wallis test) and SVV was tilted in the same direction as the line rotation. This effect of line rotation was however not consistent across head tilts and was only present in the upright and right tilt head positions. The accuracy of SVV responses showed a higher variability among subjects in the left head tilt position with no significant difference between the CW and CCW line rotations (P> 0.05; post-hoc Dunn's test).

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of the challenges to the estimate of upright with head tilt, normal subjects did remarkably well irrespective of the viewing eye. The physiological significance of the asymmetry in the effect of line rotation between the head tilt positions is unclear but it %may suggest suggests a lateralizing effect of head tilt on the visual perception of upright.

A Bayesian Account of Visual-Vestibular Interactions in the Rod-and-Frame Task

Panoramic visual cues, as generated by the objects in the environment, provide the brain with important information about gravity direction. To derive an optimal, i.e., Bayesian, estimate of gravity direction, the brain must combine panoramic information with gravity information detected by the vestibular system. Here, we examined the individual sensory contributions to this estimate psychometrically. We asked human subjects to judge the orientation (clockwise or counterclockwise relative to gravity) of a briefly flashed luminous rod, presented within an oriented square frame (rod-in-frame). Vestibular contributions were manipulated by tilting the subject's head, whereas visual contributions were manipulated by changing the viewing distance of the rod and frame. Results show a cyclical modulation of the frame-induced bias in perceived verticality across a 90° range of frame orientations. The magnitude of this bias decreased significantly with larger viewing distance, as if visual reliability was reduced. Biases increased significantly when the head was tilted, as if vestibular reliability was reduced. A Bayesian optimal integration model, with distinct vertical and horizontal panoramic weights, a gain factor to allow for visual reliability changes, and ocular counterroll in response to head tilt, provided a good fit to the data. We conclude that subjects flexibly weigh visual panoramic and vestibular information based on their orientation-dependent reliability, resulting in the observed verticality biases and the associated response variabilities.

Dissociating vestibular and somatosensory contributions to spatial orientation

Inferring object orientation in the surroundings heavily depends on our internal sense of direction of gravity. Previous research showed that this sense is based on the integration of multiple information sources, including visual, vestibular (otolithic), and somatosensory signals. The individual noise characteristics and contributions of these sensors can be studied using spatial orientation tasks, such as the subjective visual vertical (SVV) task. A recent study reported that patients with complete bilateral vestibular loss perform similar as healthy controls on these tasks, from which it was conjectured that the noise levels of both otoliths and body somatosensors are roll-tilt dependent. Here, we tested this hypothesis in 10 healthy human subjects by roll tilting the head relative to the body to dissociate tilt-angle dependencies of otolith and somatosensory noise. Using a psychometric approach, we measured the perceived orientation, and its variability, of a briefly flashed line relative to the gravitational vertical (SVV). Measurements were taken at multiple body-in-space orientations (-90 to 90°, steps of 30°) and head-on-body roll tilts (30° left ear down, aligned, 30° right ear down). Results showed that verticality perception is processed in a head-in-space reference frame, with a systematic SVV error that increased with larger head-in-space orientations. Variability patterns indicated a larger contribution of the otolith organs around upright and a more substantial contribution of the body somatosensors at larger body-in-space roll tilts. Simulations show that these findings are consistent with a statistical model that involves tilt-dependent noise levels of both otolith and somatosensory signals, confirming dynamic shifts in the weights of sensory inputs with tilt angle.

On the time course of short-term forgetting: a human experimental model for the sense of balance

The primary aim of this study was to establish whether the decline of the memory of an angular displacement, detected by the semicircular canals, is best characterized by an exponential function or by a power function. In 27 subjects a conflict was created between the semicircular canals and the graviceptive systems. Subjects were seated, facing forwards, in the gondola of a large centrifuge. The centrifuge was accelerated from stationary to 2.5Gz. While the swing out of the gondola (66°) during acceleration constitutes a frontal plane angular-displacement stimulus to the semicircular canals, the graviceptive systems persistently signal that the subject is upright. During 6 min at 2.5Gz the perceived head and body position was recorded; in darkness the subject repeatedly adjusted the orientation of a luminous line so that it appeared to be horizontal. Acceleration of the centrifuge induced a sensation of tilt which declined with time in a characteristic way. A three-parameter exponential function (Y = Ae(-bt) + C) and a power function (Y = At(-b) + C) were fitted to the data points. The inter-individual variability was considerable. In the vast majority of cases, however, the exponential function provided a better fit (in terms of RMS error) than the power function. The mean exponential function was: y = 27.8e(-0.018t) + 0.5°, where t is time in seconds. Findings are discussed with connection to possible underlying neural mechanisms; in particular, the head-direction system and short-term potentiation and persistent action potential firing in the hippocampus are considered.

Internal Models, Vestibular Cognition, and Mental Imagery: Conceptual Considerations

Vestibular cognition has recently gained attention. Despite numerous experimental and clinical demonstrations, it is not yet clear what vestibular cognition really is. For future research in vestibular cognition, adopting a computational approach will make it easier to explore the underlying mechanisms. Indeed, most modeling approaches in vestibular science include a top-down or a priori component. We review recent Bayesian optimal observer models, and discuss in detail the conceptual value of prior assumptions, likelihood and posterior estimates for research in vestibular cognition. We then consider forward models in vestibular processing, which are required in order to distinguish between sensory input that is induced by active self-motion, and sensory input that is due to passive self-motion. We suggest that forward models are used not only in the service of estimating sensory states but they can also be drawn upon in an offline mode (e.g., spatial perspective transformations), in which interaction with sensory input is not desired. A computational approach to vestibular cognition will help to discover connections across studies, and it will provide a more coherent framework for investigating vestibular cognition.

Sensorimotor and cognitive factors associated with the age-related increase of visual field dependence: a cross-sectional study

Reliance on the visual frame of reference for spatial orientation (or visual field dependence) has been reported to increase with age. This has implications on old adults' daily living tasks as it affects stability, attention, and adaptation capacities. However, the nature and underlying mechanisms of this increase are not well defined. We investigated sensorimotor and cognitive factors possibly associated with increased visual field dependence in old age, by considering functions that are both known to degrade with age and important for spatial orientation and sensorimotor control: reliance on the (somatosensory-based) egocentric frame of reference, visual fixation stability, and attentional processing of complex visual scenes (useful field of view, UFOV). Twenty young, 18 middle-aged, and 20 old adults completed a visual examination, three tests of visual field dependence (RFT, RDT, and GEFT), a test of egocentric dependence (subjective vertical estimation with the body erect and tilted at 70°), a visual fixation task, and a test of visual attentional processing (UFOV®). Increased visual field dependence with age was associated with reduced egocentric dependence, visual fixation stability, and visual attentional processing. In addition, visual fixation instability and reduced UFOV were correlated. Results of middle-aged adults fell between those of the young and old, revealing the progressive nature of the age effects we evaluated. We discuss results in terms of reference frame selection with respect to ageing as well as visual and non-visual information processing. Inter-individual differences amongst old adults are highlighted and discussed with respect to the functionality of increased visual field dependence.

Sensory substitution in bilateral vestibular a-reflexic patients

Patients with bilateral vestibular loss have balance problems in darkness, but maintain spatial orientation rather effectively in the light. It has been suggested that these patients compensate for vestibular cues by relying on extravestibular signals, including visual and somatosensory cues, and integrating them with internal beliefs. How this integration comes about is unknown, but recent literature suggests the healthy brain remaps the various signals into a task-dependent reference frame, thereby weighting them according to their reliability. In this paper, we examined this account in six patients with bilateral vestibular a-reflexia, and compared them to six age-matched healthy controls. Subjects had to report the orientation of their body relative to a reference orientation or the orientation of a flashed luminous line relative to the gravitational vertical, by means of a two-alternative-forced-choice response. We tested both groups psychometrically in upright position (0°) and 90° sideways roll tilt. Perception of body tilt was unbiased in both patients and controls. Response variability, which was larger for 90° tilt, did not differ between groups, indicating that body somatosensory cues have tilt-dependent uncertainty. Perception of the visual vertical was unbiased when upright, but showed systematic undercompensation at 90° tilt. Variability, which was larger for 90° tilt than upright, did not differ between patients and controls. Our results suggest that extravestibular signals substitute for vestibular input in patients’ perception of spatial orientation. This is in line with the current status of rehabilitation programs in acute vestibular patients, targeting at recognizing body somatosensory signals as a reliable replacement for vestibular loss.

The effects of luminance, size, and duration of a visual line on apparent vertical while the head is being inclined in roll

We determined orientation of a line that is seen to be vertical (i.e., apparent vertical) while the head is inclined with the trunk upright. In this condition, it has been documented that apparent vertical is independent of head orientation (i.e., orientation constancy) or is in a direction opposite to the head inclination (i.e., the Müller effect). In this study, we have focused not only on the effect of head inclination but also on visual parameters of the line that was used to indicate apparent vertical. As the visual parameters, size (5.5° and 22° in visual angle), duration (0.1 s, 3 s, and no time limit), and luminance (0.026, 0.003, and 0.001 cd/m(2) against total darkness) were varied with the head being inclined within ±30°. The main findings were: 1) the Müller effect was at best 2°, but the head inclination was judged to be much larger than it was; 2) the correlation between apparent vertical and the judgmental error of head inclination was significant but was not very high (r = -0.20); 3) the line of short duration or of low luminance facilitated the Müller effect; and 4) the magnitude of the Müller effect was large when the head was inclined to the right rather than to the left. These findings were compared with the predictions from the theory of allowing for apparent head position, the theory of ocular countertorsion, and the sensory-tonic field theory. Many aspects of the results were consistent with the predictions from the sensory-tonic field theory.

Differential effects of visual feedback on subjective visual vertical accuracy and precision

The brain constructs an internal estimate of the gravitational vertical by integrating multiple sensory signals. In darkness, systematic head-roll dependent errors in verticality estimates, as measured by the subjective visual vertical (SVV), occur. We hypothesized that visual feedback after each trial results in increased accuracy, as physiological adjustment errors (A-/E-effect) are likely based on central computational mechanisms and investigated whether such improvements were related to adaptational shifts of perceived vertical or to a higher cognitive strategy. We asked 12 healthy human subjects to adjust a luminous arrow to vertical in various head-roll positions (0 to 120deg right-ear down, 15deg steps). After each adjustment visual feedback was provided (lights on, display of previous adjustment and of an earth-vertical cross). Control trials consisted of SVV adjustments without feedback. At head-roll angles with the largest A-effect (90, 105, and 120deg), errors were reduced significantly (p<0.001) by visual feedback, i.e. roll under-compensation decreased, while precision of SVV was not significantly (p>0.05) influenced. In seven subjects an additional session with two consecutive blocks (first with, then without visual feedback) was completed at 90, 105 and 120deg head-roll. In these positions the error-reduction by the previous visual feedback block remained significant over the consecutive 18-24 min (post-feedback block), i.e., was still significantly (p<0.002) different from the control trials. Eleven out of 12 subjects reported having consciously added a bias to their perceived vertical based on visual feedback in order to minimize errors. We conclude that improvements of SVV accuracy by visual feedback, which remained effective after removal of feedback for ≥18 min, rather resulted from a cognitive strategy than by adapting the internal estimate of the gravitational vertical. The mechanisms behind the SVV therefore, remained stable, which is also supported by the fact that SVV precision - depending mostly on otolith input - was not affected by visual feedback.

The perception and representation of orientations: a study in the haptic modality

This research examines the haptic perception of orientations in the frontal plane in order to identify the nature of their representation. Blindfolded participants inserted the tip of the index finger into a thimble mounted on the extremity of a haptic interface and manually explored the orientation of a "virtual rod". After a short delay, participants had to reproduce the scanned orientation with the same hand without the guidance of the virtual rod. The analysis of the systematic errors showed that the recalled orientations were markedly biased toward the nearest diagonal in each quadrant with the exception of the orientations nearest to the vertical, which were biased toward the vertical. The variable error was greater for the oblique orientations than for the horizontal or vertical orientation. These results are interpreted with the Category-Adjustment model, which posits that orientations are categorically represented. We show that it is necessary to assume the existence of vertical and horizontal categories in addition to the previously postulated oblique categories to predict the error patterns observed in the present and former studies. The similarity of the error patterns in the visual and haptic modalities suggests that a common mechanism is at play in perceiving and reproducing orientations in both sensory modalities.

Does the integration of haptic and visual cues reduce the effect of a biased visual reference frame on the subjective head orientation?

Background

The selection of appropriate frames of reference (FOR) is a key factor in the elaboration of spatial perception and the production of robust interaction with our environment. The extent to which we perceive the head axis orientation (subjective head orientation, SHO) with both accuracy and precision likely contributes to the efficiency of these spatial interactions. A first goal of this study was to investigate the relative contribution of both the visual and egocentric FOR (centre-of-mass) in the SHO processing. A second goal was to investigate humans' ability to process SHO in various sensory response modalities (visual, haptic and visuo-haptic), and the way they modify the reliance to either the visual or egocentric FORs. A third goal was to question whether subjects combined visual and haptic cues optimally to increase SHO certainty and to decrease the FORs disruption effect.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Thirteen subjects were asked to indicate their SHO while the visual and/or egocentric FORs were deviated. Four results emerged from our study. First, visual rod settings to SHO were altered by the tilted visual frame but not by the egocentric FOR alteration, whereas no haptic settings alteration was observed whether due to the egocentric FOR alteration or the tilted visual frame. These results are modulated by individual analysis. Second, visual and egocentric FOR dependency appear to be negatively correlated. Third, the response modality enrichment appears to improve SHO. Fourth, several combination rules of the visuo-haptic cues such as the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), Winner-Take-All (WTA) or Unweighted Mean (UWM) rule seem to account for SHO improvements. However, the UWM rule seems to best account for the improvement of visuo-haptic estimates, especially in situations with high FOR incongruence. Finally, the data also indicated that FOR reliance resulted from the application of UWM rule. This was observed more particularly, in the visual dependent subject. Conclusions: Taken together, these findings emphasize the importance of identifying individual spatial FOR preferences to assess the efficiency of our interaction with the environment whilst performing spatial tasks.

Multisensory processing in spatial orientation: an inverse probabilistic approach

Most evidence that the brain uses Bayesian inference to integrate noisy sensory signals optimally has been obtained by showing that the noise levels in each modality separately can predict performance in combined conditions. Such a forward approach is difficult to implement when the various signals cannot be measured in isolation, as in spatial orientation, which involves the processing of visual, somatosensory, and vestibular cues. Instead, we applied an inverse probabilistic approach, based on optimal observer theory. Our goal was to investigate whether the perceptual differences found when probing two different states--body-in-space and head-in-space orientation--can be reconciled by a shared scheme using all available sensory signals. Using a psychometric approach, seven human subjects were tested on two orientation estimates at tilts < 120°: perception of body tilt [subjective body tilt (SBT)] and perception of visual vertical [subjective visual vertical (SVV)]. In all subjects, the SBT was more accurate than the SVV, which showed substantial systematic errors for tilt angles beyond 60°. Variability increased with tilt angle in both tasks, but was consistently lower in the SVV. The sensory integration model fitted both datasets very nicely. A further experiment, in which supine subjects judged their head orientation relative to the body, independently confirmed the predicted head-on-body noise by the model. Model predictions based on the derived noise properties from the various modalities were also consistent with previously published deficits in vestibular and somatosensory patients. We conclude that Bayesian computations can account for the typical differences in spatial orientation judgments associated with different task requirements.

The effect of head roll on perceived auditory zenith

We studied the influence of static head roll on the perceived auditory zenith in head-centred and world-centred coordinates. Subjects sat either upright, or with their head left/right rolled sideways by about 35° relative to gravity, whilst judging whether a broadband sound was heard left or right from the head-centred or world-centred zenith. When upright, these reference frames coincide. Results show that subjects judged the zenith accurately within different planes, although response variability increased for the midsagittal plane. With the head rolled, head-centred auditory zenith shifted by the same amount and was located as accurately as for upright, indicating unaltered localisation cues by head-on-body roll. Interestingly, when judging world-centred zenith subjects made large systematic errors (10-15°) in the direction of head roll, and response variability increased, which resembles the visual Aubert effect. These results demonstrate a significant influence of the vestibular-collic system on auditory spatial awareness, which sheds new light on the mechanisms underlying multisensory integration and spatial updating in sound localisation behaviour.

Precision and accuracy of the subjective haptic vertical in the roll plane

BACKGROUND

When roll-tilted, the subjective visual vertical (SVV) deviates up to 40 degrees from earth-vertical and trial-to-trial variability increases with head roll. Imperfections in the central processing of visual information were postulated to explain these roll-angle dependent errors. For experimental conditions devoid of visual input, e.g. adjustments of body posture or of an object along vertical in darkness, significantly smaller errors were noted. Whereas the accuracy of verticality adjustments seems to depend strongly on the paradigm, we hypothesize that the precision, i.e. the inverse of trial-to-trial variability, is less influenced by the experimental setup and mainly reflects properties of the otoliths. Here we measured the subjective haptic vertical (SHV) and compared findings with previously reported SVV data. Twelve healthy right-handed human subjects (handedness assessed based on subjects' verbal report) adjusted a rod with the right hand along perceived earth-vertical during static head roll-tilts (0-360 degrees , steps of 20 degrees ).

RESULTS

SHV adjustments showed a tendency for clockwise rod rotations to deviate counter-clockwise and for counter-clockwise rod rotations to deviate clockwise, indicating hysteresis. Clockwise rod rotations resulted in counter-clockwise shifts of perceived earth-vertical up to -11.7 degrees and an average counter-clockwise SHV shift over all roll angles of -3.3 degrees (+/- 11.0 degrees ; +/- 1 StdDev). Counter-clockwise rod rotations yielded peak SHV deviations in clockwise direction of 8.9 degrees and an average clockwise SHV shift over all roll angles of 1.8 degrees (+/- 11.1 degrees ). Trial-to-trial variability was minimal in upright position, increased with increasing roll (peaking around 120-140 degrees ) and decreased to intermediate values in upside-down orientation. Compared to SVV, SHV variability near upright and upside-down was non-significantly (p > 0.05) larger; both showed an m-shaped pattern of variability as a function of roll position.

CONCLUSIONS

The reduction of adjustment errors by eliminating visual input supports the notion that deviations between perceived and actual earth-vertical in roll-tilted positions arise from central processing of visual information. The shared roll-tilt dependent modulation of trial-to-trial variability for both SVV and SHV, on the other hand, indicates that the perception of earth-verticality is dominated by the same sensory signal, i.e. the otolith signal, independent of whether the line/rod setting is under visual or tactile control.

Internal models and neural computation in the vestibular system

The vestibular system is vital for motor control and spatial self-motion perception. Afferents from the otolith organs and the semicircular canals converge with optokinetic, somatosensory and motor-related signals in the vestibular nuclei, which are reciprocally interconnected with the vestibulocerebellar cortex and deep cerebellar nuclei. Here, we review the properties of the many cell types in the vestibular nuclei, as well as some fundamental computations implemented within this brainstem-cerebellar circuitry. These include the sensorimotor transformations for reflex generation, the neural computations for inertial motion estimation, the distinction between active and passive head movements, as well as the integration of vestibular and proprioceptive information for body motion estimation. A common theme in the solution to such computational problems is the concept of internal models and their neural implementation. Recent studies have shed new insights into important organizational principles that closely resemble those proposed for other sensorimotor systems, where their neural basis has often been more difficult to identify. As such, the vestibular system provides an excellent model to explore common neural processing strategies relevant both for reflexive and for goal-directed, voluntary movement as well as perception.

Gravity Dependence of Subjective Visual Vertical Variability

The brain integrates sensory input from the otolith organs, the semicircular canals, and the somatosensory and visual systems to determine self-orientation relative to gravity. Only the otoliths directly sense the gravito-inertial force vector and therefore provide the major input for perceiving static head-roll relative to gravity, as measured by the subjective visual vertical (SVV). Intraindividual SVV variability increases with head roll, which suggests that the effectiveness of the otolith signal is roll-angle dependent. We asked whether SVV variability reflects the spatial distribution of the otolithic sensors and the otolith-derived acceleration estimate. Subjects were placed in different roll orientations (0–360°, 15° steps) and asked to align an arrow with perceived vertical. Variability was minimal in upright, increased with head-roll peaking around 120–135°, and decreased to intermediate values at 180°. Otolith-dependent variability was modeled by taking into consideration the nonuniform distribution of the otolith afferents and their nonlinear firing rate. The otolith-derived estimate was combined with an internal bias shifting the estimated gravity-vector toward the body-longitudinal. Assuming an efficient otolith estimator at all roll angles, peak variability of the model matched our data; however, modeled variability in upside-down and upright positions was very similar, which is at odds with our findings. By decreasing the effectiveness of the otolith estimator with increasing roll, simulated variability matched our experimental findings better. We suggest that modulations of SVV precision in the roll plane are related to the properties of the otolith sensors and to central computational mechanisms that are not optimally tuned for roll-angles distant from upright.

Influence of perceived egocentric coordinates on the subjective visual vertical

The majority of previous studies which have explored the mechanisms underlying perception of the direction of gravity in static roll tilt have proposed that the tendency to estimate the subjective visual vertical (SVV) as tilted towards body tilt ('Aubert effect') arises from an underestimation of perceived body tilt. The present study has evaluated an alternative assumption that erroneous estimates of verticality may be related to the ability to estimate the orientation of external objects with respect to the observer's perceived body Z-axis. Experiments showed that Aubert effects and the overestimation of 30-90 degrees angles from the body Z-axis in the roll plane were both related to errors made in adjusting a visual rod parallel to the body Z-axis. The results suggest that errors in providing visual estimates of the observer's own body Z-axis reference are implicated in Aubert effect.

Fusion of Visual and Vestibular Tilt Cues in the Perception of Visual Vertical

We investigated the effect of visual and vestibular body-tilt cues on the subjective visual vertical (SVV) in six human observers at roll tilts of 0, 60, and 120°. Subjects adjusted a small luminous test line parallel to the perceived direction of gravity, in the presence of a large peripheral visual frame line. These settings, referred to as the frame SVV, were compared with the SVV in complete darkness (dark SVV). The frame SVV was virtually identical to the dark SVV for frame lines parallel or orthogonal to the dark SVV. Away from these neutral positions, the frame induced a periodic SVV modulation, which was small in upright observers, but became quite pronounced when subjects were tilted. For upright, where the dark SVV was very accurate, the frame SVV showed errors in both directions, following a roughly symmetrical pattern. At 120° tilt, where the dark SVV invariably showed tilt undercompensation (A-effect), the frame effect became asymmetrical, with a stronger tendency to improve than to worsen accuracy. We tested whether our findings could be explained by two spatial orientation models: Mittelstaedt's idiotropic model and a Bayesian scheme with a stage for the processing of visual cues. Both models show a periodic frame effect that becomes stronger with increasing body tilt and can explain why frame lines parallel or perpendicular to the dark SVV are ineffective. Based on their performance, we conclude that perception of the visual vertical is based on a centrally weighted fusion of visual, vestibular, and egocentric references.

Perceived Self-Tilt in Dynamic Visual Stimuli: Evidence for Suppression by Vestibulo-Tactile Inputs

Perception of self-tilt is affected by shearing force acting on the otolith organs in the ears, by pressure acting on the tactile receptors in the skin, and by visual pattern falling on the retinae. We examined how the vestibular, somatosensory, and visual inputs interact in judging self-tilt in roll. Each of fourteen observers, sitting in a chair and gazing at a rotation pattern in the frontal plane, was tilted to various angles and verbally judged to what extent his/her body was tilted. The independent variables examined were body tilt (0° to ±108°), and the rate (7.5° s−1, 15° s−1, and 30° s−1) and direction (CW and CCW) of the visual rotating pattern. We found that (i) the sensory scale for self-tilt is represented by a third-order polynomial lacking the quadratic component, (ii) perceived self-tilt for the CW (or CCW) rotation of the visual pattern is displaced CCW (or CW), (iii) the linear and cubic components of the equation increase with an increase in the rate of rotation of the visual pattern, and (iv) if the body is tilted in concord with the direction of vection, the velocity of visual pattern is effective, but when the body is tilted in conflict with the direction of vection, it is less effective. These findings are interpreted in terms of vestibular and somatosensory suppressions exerted on the effects of vection.

Human updating of visual motion direction during head rotations

Previous studies have demonstrated that human subjects update the location of visual targets for saccades after head and body movements and in the absence of visual feedback. This phenomenon is known as spatial updating. Here we investigated whether a similar mechanism exists for the perception of motion direction. We recorded eye positions in three dimensions and behavioral responses in seven subjects during a motion task in two different conditions: when the subject's head remained stationary and when subjects rotated their heads around an anteroposterior axis (head tilt). We demonstrated that after head-tilt subjects updated the direction of saccades made in the perceived stimulus direction (direction of motion updating), the amount of updating varied across subjects and stimulus directions, the amount of motion direction updating was highly correlated with the amount of spatial updating during a memory-guided saccade task, subjects updated the stimulus direction during a two-alternative forced-choice direction discrimination task in the absence of saccadic eye movements (perceptual updating), perceptual updating was more accurate than motion direction updating involving saccades, and subjects updated motion direction similarly during active and passive head rotation. These results demonstrate the existence of an updating mechanism for the perception of motion direction in the human brain that operates during active and passive head rotations and that resembles the one of spatial updating. Such a mechanism operates during different tasks involving different motor and perceptual skills (saccade and motion direction discrimination) with different degrees of accuracy.

Body-tilt and visual verticality perception during multiple cycles of roll rotation

To assess the effects of degrading canal cues for dynamic spatial orientation in human observers, we tested how judgments about visual-line orientation in space (subjective visual vertical task, SVV) and estimates of instantaneous body tilt (subjective body-tilt task, SBT) develop in the course of three cycles of constant-velocity roll rotation. These abilities were tested across the entire tilt range in separate experiments. For comparison, we also obtained SVV data during static roll tilt. We found that as tilt increased, dynamic SVV responses became strongly biased toward the head pole of the body axis (A-effect), as if body tilt was underestimated. However, on entering the range of near-inverse tilts, SVV responses adopted a bimodal pattern, alternating between A-effects (biased toward head-pole) and E-effects (biased toward feet-pole). Apart from an onset effect, this tilt-dependent pattern of systematic SVV errors repeated itself in subsequent rotation cycles with little sign of worsening performance. Static SVV responses were qualitatively similar and consistent with previous reports but showed smaller A-effects. By contrast, dynamic SBT errors were small and unimodal, indicating that errors in visual-verticality estimates were not caused by errors in body-tilt estimation. We discuss these results in terms of predictions from a canal-otolith interaction model extended with a leaky integrator and an egocentric bias mechanism. We conclude that the egocentric-bias mechanism becomes more manifest during constant velocity roll-rotation and that perceptual errors due to incorrect disambiguation of the otolith signal are small despite the decay of canal signals.

Shared computational mechanism for tilt compensation accounts for biased verticality percepts in motion and pattern vision

To determine the direction of object motion in external space, the brain must combine retinal motion signals and information about the orientation of the eyes in space. We assessed the accuracy of this process in eight laterally tilted subjects who aligned the motion direction of a random-dot pattern (30% coherence, moving at 6 degrees /s) with their perceived direction of gravity (motion vertical) in otherwise complete darkness. For comparison, we also tested the ability to align an adjustable visual line (12 degrees diameter) to the direction of gravity (line vertical). For small head tilts (<40 degrees ), systematic errors in either task were almost negligible. In contrast, tilts >60 degrees revealed a pattern of large systematic errors (often >30 degrees ) that was virtually identical in both tasks. Regression analysis confirmed that mean errors in the two tasks were closely related, with slopes close to 1.0 and correlations >0.89. Control experiments ruled out that motion settings were based on processing of individual single-dot paths. We conclude that the conversion of both motion direction and line orientation on the retina into a spatial frame of reference involves a shared computational strategy. Simulations with two spatial-orientation models suggest that the pattern of systematic errors may be the downside of an optimal strategy for dealing with imperfections in the tilt signal that is implemented before the reference-frame transformation.

Canal and Otolith Contributions to Visual Orientation Constancy During Sinusoidal Roll Rotation

Using vestibular sensors to maintain visual stability during changes in head tilt, crucial when panoramic cues are not available, presents a computational challenge. Reliance on the otoliths requires a neural strategy for resolving their tilt/translation ambiguity, such as canal–otolith interaction or frequency segregation. The canal signal is subject to bandwidth limitations. In this study, we assessed the relative contribution of canal and otolith signals and investigated how they might be processed and combined. The experimental approach was to explore conditions with and without otolith contributions in a frequency range with various degrees of canal activation. We tested the perceptual stability of visual line orientation in six human subjects during passive sinusoidal roll tilt in the dark at frequencies from 0.05 to 0.4 Hz (30° peak to peak). Because subjects were constantly monitoring spatial motion of a visual line in the frontal plane, the paradigm required moment-to-moment updating for ongoing ego motion. Their task was to judge the total spatial sway of the line when it rotated sinusoidally at various amplitudes. From the responses we determined how the line had to be rotated to be perceived as stable in space. Tests were taken both with (subject upright) and without (subject supine) gravity cues. Analysis of these data showed that the compensation for body rotation in the computation of line orientation in space, although always incomplete, depended on vestibular rotation frequency and on the availability of gravity cues. In the supine condition, the compensation for ego motion showed a steep increase with frequency, compatible with an integrated canal signal. The improvement of performance in the upright condition, afforded by graviceptive cues from the otoliths, showed low-pass characteristics. Simulations showed that a linear combination of an integrated canal signal and a gravity-based signal can account for these results.

Visuospatial Memory Computations During Whole-Body Rotations in Roll

We used a memory-saccade task to test whether the location of a target, briefly presented before a whole-body rotation in roll, is stored in egocentric or in allocentric coordinates. To make this distinction, we exploited the fact that subjects, when tilted sideways in darkness, make systematic errors when indicating the direction of gravity (an allocentric task) even though they have a veridical percept of their self-orientation in space. We hypothesized that if spatial memory is coded allocentrically, these distortions affect the coding of remembered targets and their readout after a body rotation. Alternatively, if coding is egocentric, updating for body rotation becomes essential and errors in performance should be related to the amount of intervening rotation. Subjects ( n = 6) were tested making saccades to remembered world-fixed targets after passive body tilts. Initial and final tilt angle ranged between −120° CCW and 120° CW. The results showed that subjects made large systematic directional errors in their saccades (up to 90°). These errors did not occur in the absence of intervening body rotation, ruling out a memory degradation effect. Regression analysis showed that the errors were closely related to the amount of subjective allocentric distortion at both the initial and final tilt angle, rather than to the amount of intervening rotation. We conclude that the brain uses an allocentric reference frame, possibly gravity-based, to code visuospatial memories during whole-body tilts. This supports the notion that the brain can define information in multiple frames of reference, depending on sensory inputs and task demands.

Nature of the Transition Between Two Modes of External Space Perception in Tilted Subjects

A striking feature of visual verticality estimates in the dark is undercompensation for lateral body tilt. Earlier studies and models suggest that this so-called Aubert (A) effect increases gradually to around 130° tilt and then decays smoothly on approaching the inverted position. By contrast, we recently found an abrupt transition toward errors of opposite sign (E effect) when body tilt exceeded 135°. The present study was undertaken to clarify the nature of this transition. We tested the subjective visual vertical in stationary roll-tilted human subjects using various rotation paradigms and testing methods. Cluster analysis identified two clearly separate response modes (A or E effect), present in all conditions, which dominated in different but overlapping tilt ranges. Within the overlap zone, the subjective vertical appeared bistable on repeated testing with responses in both categories. The tilt range where bistability occurred depended on the direction of the preceding rotation (hysteresis). The overlap zone shifted to a smaller tilt angle when testing was preceded by a rotation through the inverted position, compared with short opposite rotations from upright. We discuss the possibility that the A-E transition reflects a reference shift from compensating line settings for the head deviation from upright to basing them on the tilt deviation of the feet from upright. In this scenario, both the A and the E effect reflect tilt undercompensation. To explain the hysteresis and the bistability, we propose that the transition is triggered when perceived body tilt, a signal with known noise and hysteresis properties, crosses a fixed threshold.

Dissociation between subjective vertical and subjective body orientation elicited by galvanic vestibular stimulation

Previous studies demonstrated that sensory stimulation could differentially affect the subjective vertical (SV) and the subjective body orientation (SBO). This suggests that the central nervous system elaborates various references of verticality in function of the task demands and of the available sensory information. In this study, we tested whether the dissociation between SV and SBO appears for a selective stimulation of the vestibular system, by using galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). Seated subjects performed vertical settings by controlling the orientation of a visual rod during GVS. Subjects were also instructed to evaluate the orientation of the head and trunk relative to gravity. The results revealed a large variability in the way SV and SBO were affected. In all cases, the effect of GVS on SV was not a mirror image of a distorted SBO. We propose that this dissociation is mainly determined by central processes involved in the estimation of sensory cues reliability. GVS also yielded a tilt of the head when the head was unrestrained. The results suggest that changes in actual head orientation yielded by GVS may be related to the perceived direction of gravity but cannot be explained by a compensation of an illusory orientation of the head.

Localization of the plane of regard in space

When we fixate an object in space, the rotation centers of the eyes, together with the object, define a plane of regard. People perceive the elevation of objects relative to this plane accurately, irrespective of eye or head orientation (Poljac et al. (2004) Vision Res, in press). Yet, to create a correct representation of objects in space, the orientation of the plane of regard in space is required. Subjects pointed along an eccentric vertical line on a touch screen to the location where their plane of regard intersected the touch screen positioned on their right. The distance of the vertical line to the subject's eyes varied from 10 to 40 cm. Subjects were sitting upright and fixating one of the nine randomly presented directions ranging from 20 degrees left and down to 20 degrees right and up relative to their straight ahead. The eccentricity of fixations relative to the pointing location varied by up to 40 degrees . Subjects underestimated the elevation of their plane of regard (on average by 3.69 cm, SD=1.44 cm), regardless of the fixation direction or pointing distance. However, when the targets were shown on a display mounted in a table, to provide support of the subject's hand throughout the trial, subjects pointed accurately (average error 0.3 cm, SD=0.8 cm). In addition, head tilt 20 degrees to the left or right did not cause any change in accuracy. The bias observed in the first task could be caused by maintained tonus in arm muscles when the arm is raised, that might interfere with the transformation from visual to motor signals needed to perform the pointing movement. We conclude that the plane of regard is correctly localized in space. This may be a good starting point for representing objects in head-centric coordinates.

Interpretation of a discontinuity in the sense of verticality at large body tilt

Results of earlier spatial-orientation studies focusing on the sense of verticality have emphasized an intriguing paradox. Despite evidence that nearly veridical signals for gravicentric head orientation and egocentric visual stimulus orientation are available, roll-tilted subjects err in the direction of the long body axis when adjusting a visual line to vertical in darkness (Aubert effect). This has led to the suggestion that a central egocentric bias signal with fixed strength and direction acts to pull the perceived vertical to the subjects' zenith (M-model). In the present study, the subjective visual vertical (SVV) was tested in six human subjects, across the entire 360 degrees range. For comparison, body-tilt estimates from four subjects where collected in a separate series of experiments. For absolute tilts up to approximately 135 degrees, SVV responses showed a gradually increasing Aubert effect that could not be attributed to errors in perceived body tilt but was nicely in line with the M-model. At larger absolute tilts, SVV errors abruptly reversed sign, now showing a pattern concordant with errors in body-tilt estimates but incompatible with the M-model. These results suggest that, in the normal working range, the perception of external space and the perception of body posture are based on different processing of body-tilt signals. Beyond this range, both spatial-orientation tasks seem to rely mainly on a common tilt signal.

Contribution of somesthetic cues to the perception of body orientation and subjective visual vertical

Without relevant visual cues, the subjective visual vertical (SVV) is biased in roll-tilted subjects toward the body axis (Aubert or A-effect). This study focused on the role of the somatosensory system with respect to the SVV and on whether somesthetic cues act through the estimated body tilt. The body cast technology was used to obtain a diffuse tactile stimulation. An increased A-effect was expected because of a greater underestimation of the body position in the body cast. Sixteen subjects placed in a tilt chair were rolled sideways from 0 degrees to 105 degrees. They were asked to verbally indicate their subjective body position and then to adjust a luminous line to the vertical under strapped and body cast conditions. Results showed a greater A-effect (p < .001) but an overestimation of the body orientation (p < .01) in the body cast condition for the higher tilt values (beyond 60 degrees). Since the otolith organs produced the same gravity response in both conditions, errors were due to a change in somesthetic cues. Visual and postural errors were not directly related (no correlation). However, the angular distance between the apparent body position and the SW remained stable, suggesting that the change in somatosensory pattern inputs has a similar impact on the cognitive processes involved in assessing the perception of external space and the sense of self-position.

Influence of dynamic tilts on the perception of earth-vertical

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that optimal activation of both the semicircular canals and the otoliths provides reliable vestibular cues about self-orientation in space. For this, we measured the ability of subjects to estimate the subjective vertical immediately, 20 s and 90 s after a rapid tilt (180 degrees /s(2)) from upright into different roll positions between 90 degrees left and right side down. Subjects had to estimate the earth-vertical and earth-horizontal direction in the dark by (a) setting a luminous line, (b) performing saccades, and (c) verbally declaring body position relative to gravity. The mean error curves from the three paradigms showed consistent E (Müller)- and A (Aubert)-effects, which did not significantly change over time. Horizontal and vertical saccade tasks exhibited different response characteristics, as previously reported by others, which likely reflect different computation mechanisms. The verbal estimation paradigm yielded complementary results to those of the luminous line paradigm and vertical saccade task. The E-effect of the luminous line and the vertical saccade paradigm might be explained by a bias towards earth-vertical due to interactions of vestibular and neck afferent signals. The invariably small A-effect of the luminous line and the vertical saccade paradigm probably reflects somatosensory signals that had relatively weak influence in our experiments. We conclude that phasic activation of the vestibular system reduces the influence of non-vestibular cues observed in low tilt velocity or static experiments. Although this activation generates an E-effect, the total error in the range of +/-90 degrees is reduced.