Hysteresis of haptic vertical and straight ahead in healthy human subjects

Clinical Assessment of Subjective Visual and Haptic Vertical Norms in Healthy Adults

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Accurate verticality perception is essential for daily life activities, such as correctly estimating object orientation in space. This study established normative data for the subjective visual vertical (SVV) and subjective haptic vertical (SHV) using the portable and self-constructable modified Bucket test and Rotating-Column test. Additionally, the contribution of age, sex, and starting position of the line/ column on SVV and SHV accuracy were evaluated.

METHOD

This study, part of the PRECISE project (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05978596), was conducted following the STROBE guidelines. Healthy adults without visual/neurological/vestibular disorders were recruited. Subjective visual vertical and SHV accuracy were described in terms of constant errors (i.e., mean deviation from 0° [true vertical] respecting its direction), unsigned errors (i.e., mean deviation from 0° irrespective of direction), and variability (i.e., intra-individual standard deviation).

RESULTS

Sixty participants were evaluated (mean age: 41.14 [SD = 16.74] years). Subjective visual vertical constant errors between -2.82° and 2.90°, unsigned errors up to 2.15°, and variability up to 1.61° are considered normal. Subjective haptic vertical constant errors ranged from -6.94° to 8.18°, unsigned errors up to 6.66° and variability up to 4.25°. Higher ages led to higher SVV unsigned errors and variability. SHV variability was higher in females compared to males. Certain starting positions led to higher SVV and SHV constants and SVV unsigned errors.

DISCUSSION

Normative data are provided for affordable, self-constructable, and portable SVV and SHV tools. These norms are consistent with more sophisticated equipment and can be used to distinguish between normal and abnormal values.

Perceptual Biases as the Side Effect of a Multisensory Adaptive System: Insights from Verticality and Self-Motion Perception

Perceptual biases can be interpreted as adverse consequences of optimal processes which otherwise improve system performance. The review presented here focuses on the investigation of inaccuracies in multisensory perception by focusing on the perception of verticality and self-motion, where the vestibular sensory modality has a prominent role. Perception of verticality indicates how the system processes gravity. Thus, it represents an indirect measurement of vestibular perception. Head tilts can lead to biases in perceived verticality, interpreted as the influence of a vestibular prior set at the most common orientation relative to gravity (i.e., upright), useful for improving precision when upright (e.g., fall avoidance). Studies on the perception of verticality across development and in the presence of blindness show that prior acquisition is mediated by visual experience, thus unveiling the fundamental role of visuo-vestibular interconnections across development. Such multisensory interactions can be behaviorally tested with cross-modal aftereffect paradigms which test whether adaptation in one sensory modality induces biases in another, eventually revealing an interconnection between the tested sensory modalities. Such phenomena indicate the presence of multisensory neural mechanisms that constantly function to calibrate self-motion dedicated sensory modalities with each other as well as with the environment. Thus, biases in vestibular perception reveal how the brain optimally adapts to environmental requests, such as spatial navigation and steady changes in the surroundings.

Psychophysical Haptic Measurement of Vertical Perception: Elucidating a Hand Sensory Bias

The primary sensory modality for probing spatial perception can vary among psychophysical paradigms. In the subjective visual vertical (SVV) task, the brain must account for the position of the eye within the orbit to generate an estimate of a visual line orientation, whereas in the subjective haptic vertical (SHV) task, the position of the hand is used to sense the orientation of a haptic bar. Here we investigated whether a hand sensory bias can affect SHV measurement. We measured SHV in 12 subjects (6 left-handed and 6 right-handed) with a forced-choice paradigm using their left and right hands separately. The SHV measurement was less accurate than the SVV measurements (-0.6 ± 0.7) and it was biased in the direction of the hand used in the task but was not affected by handedness; SHV left hand -6.8 ± 2.1° (left-handed -7.9 ± 3.6°, right-handed -5.8 ± 2.5°) and right hand 9.8 ± 1.5° (left-handed 7.4 ± 2.2°, right-handed 12.3 ± 1.8°). SHV measurement with the same hand was also affected by the haptic bar placement on the left or right side versus midline, showing a side effect (left vs midline -2.0 ± 1.3°, right vs midline 3.8 ± 1.7°). Midline SHV measures using the left and right hands were different, confirming a laterality effect (left hand -4.5 ± 1.7°, right hand 6.4 ± 2.0°). These results demonstrate a sensory bias in SHV measurement related to the effects of both hand-in-body (i.e., right vs left hand) and hand-in-space positions. Such modality-specific bias may result in disparity between SHV and SVV measurements, and therefore cannot be generalized to vertical or spatial perception.

The Tilted Self: Visuo-Graviceptive Mismatch in the Full-Body Illusion

The bodily self is a fundamental part of human self-consciousness and relies on online multimodal information and prior beliefs about one's own body. While the contribution of the vestibular system in this process remains under-investigated, it has been theorized to be important. The present experiment investigates the influence of conflicting gravity-related visual and bodily information on the sense of a body and, vice versa, the influence of altered embodiment on verticality and own-body orientation perception. In a full-body illusion setup, participants saw in a head-mounted display a projection of their own body 2 m in front of them, on which they saw a tactile stimulation on their back displayed either synchronously or asynchronously. By tilting the seen body to one side, an additional visuo-graviceptive conflict about the body orientation was created. Self-identification with the seen body was measured explicitly with a questionnaire and implicitly with skin temperature. As measures of orientation with respect to gravity, we assessed subjective haptic vertical and the haptic body orientation. Finally, we measured the individual visual field dependence using the rod-and-frame test. The results show a decrease in self-identification during the additional visuo-graviceptive conflict, but no modulation of perceived verticality or subjective body orientation. Furthermore, explorative analyses suggest a stimulation-dependent modulation of the perceived body orientation in individuals with a strong visual field dependence only. The results suggest a mutual interaction of graviceptive and other sensory signals and the individual's weighting style in defining our sense of a bodily self.

Biases in the Visual and Haptic Subjective Vertical Reveal the Role of Proprioceptive/Vestibular Priors in Child Development

Investigation of the perception of verticality permits to disclose the perceptual mechanisms that underlie balance control and spatial navigation. Estimation of verticality in unusual body orientation with respect to gravity (e.g., laterally tilted in the roll plane) leads to biases that change depending on the encoding sensory modality and the amount of tilt. A well-known phenomenon is the A-effect, that is a bias toward the body tilt often interpreted in a Bayesian framework to be the byproduct of a prior peaked at the most common head and body orientation, i.e., upright. In this study, we took advantage of this phenomenon to study the interaction of visual, haptic sensory information with vestibular/proprioceptive priors across development. We tested children (5-13 y.o) and adults (>22 y.o.) in an orientation discrimination task laterally tilted 90° to their left-ear side. Experimental conditions differed for the tested sensory modality: visual-only, haptic-only, both modalities. Resulting accuracy depended on the developmental stage and the encoding sensory modality, showing A-effects in vision across all ages and in the haptic modality only for the youngest children whereas bimodal judgments show lack of multisensory integration in children. A Bayesian prior model nicely predicts the behavioral data when the peak of the prior distribution shifts across age groups. Our results suggest that vision is pivotal to acquire an idiotropic vector useful for improving precision when upright. The acquisition of such a prior might be related to the development of head and trunk coordination, a process that is fundamental for gaining successful spatial navigation.

Effects of Optokinetic Stimulation on Verticality Perception Are Much Larger for Vision-Based Paradigms Than for Vision-Independent Paradigms

Introduction

Verticality perception as assessed by the subjective visual vertical (SVV) is significantly biased by a rotating optokinetic stimulus. The underlying mechanisms of this effect remain open. Potentially, the optokinetic stimulus induces a shift of the internal estimate of the direction of gravity. This hypothesis predicts a shift of perceived vertical using other, non-vision dependent, paradigms as well. Alternatively, an optokinetic stimulus may only induce a shift of visual orientation, and so would be task specific.

Methods

To test this prediction, both vision-dependent SVV and vision-independent [subjective haptic vertical (SHV)] paradigms were applied. In 12 healthy human subjects, perceived vertical was measured in different whole-body roll positions (up to ±120°, steps = 30°) while watching a clockwise or counterclockwise rotating optokinetic stimulus. For comparison, baseline trials were collected in darkness. A generalized linear model was applied for statistical analysis.

Results

A significant main effect for optokinetic stimulation was noted both for the SVV paradigm (p < 0.001) and the SHV paradigm (p = 0.013). However, while pairwise comparisons demonstrated significant optokinetic-induced shifts (p ≤ 0.035) compared to baseline in all roll-tilted orientations except 30° and 60° left-ear-down position and counterclockwise optokinetic stimulation for the SVV paradigm, significant shifts were found in only 1 of the 18 test conditions (120° left-ear-down roll orientation, counterclockwise optokinetic stimulation) for the SHV paradigm. Compared to the SHV, the SVV showed significantly (p < 0.001) larger shifts of perceived vertical when presenting a clockwise (15.3 ± 16.0° vs. 1.1 ± 5.2°, mean ± 1 SD) or counterclockwise (−12.6 ± 7.7° vs. −2.6 ± 5.4°) rotating optokinetic stimulus.

Conclusion

Comparing the effect of optokinetic stimulation on verticality perception in both vision-dependent and vision-independent paradigms, we demonstrated distinct patterns. While significant large and roll-angle dependent shifts were noted for the SVV, offsets were minor and reached significance only in one test condition for the SHV. These results suggest that optokinetic stimulation predominately affects vision-related mechanisms, possibly due to induced torsional eye displacements, and that any shifts of the internal estimate of the direction of gravity are relatively minor.

The Subjective Visual Vertical and the Subjective Haptic Vertical Access Different Gravity Estimates

The subjective visual vertical (SVV) and the subjective haptic vertical (SHV) both claim to probe the underlying perception of gravity. However, when the body is roll tilted these two measures evoke different patterns of errors with SVV generally becoming biased towards the body (A-effect, named for its discoverer, Hermann Rudolph Aubert) and SHV remaining accurate or becoming biased away from the body (E-effect, short for Entgegengesetzt-effect, meaning “opposite”, i.e., opposite to the A-effect). We compared the two methods in a series of five experiments and provide evidence that the two measures access two different but related estimates of gravitational vertical. Experiment 1 compared SVV and SHV across three levels of whole-body tilt and found that SVV showed an A-effect at larger tilts while SHV was accurate. Experiment 2 found that tilting either the head or the trunk independently produced an A-effect in SVV while SHV remained accurate when the head was tilted on an upright body but showed an A-effect when the body was tilted below an upright head. Experiment 3 repeated these head/body configurations in the presence of vestibular noise induced by using disruptive galvanic vestibular stimulation (dGVS). dGVS abolished both SVV and SHV A-effects while evoking a massive E-effect in the SHV head tilt condition. Experiments 4 and 5 show that SVV and SHV do not combine in an optimally statistical fashion, but when vibration is applied to the dorsal neck muscles, integration becomes optimal. Overall our results suggest that SVV and SHV access distinct underlying gravity percepts based primarily on head and body position information respectively, consistent with a model proposed by Clemens and colleagues.

Anchoring in action: manual estimates of slant are powerfully biased toward initial hand orientation and are correlated with verbal report

People verbally overestimate hill slant by approximately 15° to 25°, whereas manual estimates (e.g., palm board measures) are thought to be more accurate. The relative accuracy of palm boards has contributed to the widely cited theoretical claim that they tap into an accurate, but unconscious, motor representation of locomotor space. In the current work, 4 replications (total N = 204) carried out by 2 different laboratories tested an alternative anchoring hypothesis that manual action measures give low estimates because they are always initiated from horizontal. The results of all 4 replications indicate that the bias from response anchoring can entirely account for the difference between manual and verbal estimates. Moreover, consistent correlations between manual and verbal estimates given by the same observers support the conclusion that both measures are based on the same visual representation. Concepts from the study of judgment under uncertainty apply even to action measures in information rich environments.