Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 173, Issue 3, pp 364–373 | Cite as

Localization of the subjective vertical during roll, pitch, and recumbent yaw body tilt

  • Simone B. Bortolami
  • Alberto Pierobon
  • Paul DiZio
  • James R. Lackner
Research Article

Abstract

Localization of the subjective vertical during body tilt in pitch and in roll has been extensively studied because of the relevance of these axes for aviation and control of posture. Studies of yaw orientation relative to gravity are lacking. Our goal was to perform the first thorough evaluation of static orientation in recumbent yaw and to collect as efficiently as possible roll and pitch orientation data which would be consistent with the literature, using the same technique as our yaw tests. This would create the first comprehensive, coherent data set for all three axes suitable for quantitative tri-dimensional modeling of spatial orientation. We tested localization of the vertical for subjects tilted in pitch (−100° to +130°), in roll (−90° to +90°), and in yaw while recumbent (−80° to +80°). We had subjects point a gravity-neutral probe to the gravitational vertical (haptically indicated vertical) and report verbally their perceived tilt. Subjects underestimated their body tilts in recumbent yaw and pitch and overestimated their tilts in roll. The haptic settings for pitch and roll were consistent with data in the literature obtained with haptic and visual indications. Our data constitute the first tri-dimensional assessment of the subjective vertical using a common measurement procedure and provide the basis for the tri-axial modeling of vestibular function presented in the companion paper.

Keywords

Spatial orientation Otolith Somatosensation Subjective vertical Gravity Roll tilt Pitch tilt Recumbent yaw tilt Sensory illusions Haptic vertical 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by AFSOR grant F49620110171 and NASA grant NAG9-1483. We thank Dr. Simone Rocca and Dr. Sebastiano Daros for their contributions and experimental help.

References

  1. Bauermeister M, Werner H, Wapner S (1964) The effect of body tilt on tactual-kinesthetic perception of verticality. Am J Psychol 77:451–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson AJ, Barnes GR (1970) Responses to rotating linear acceleration vectors considered in relation to a model of the otolith organs. In: The role of the vestibular organs in space exploration, NASA SP-314, pp 222–236Google Scholar
  3. Betts GA, Curthoys IS (1998) Visually perceived vertical and visually perceived horizontal are not orthogonal. Vis Res 38:1989–1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohmer A, Mast F (1999) Assessing otolith function by the subjective visual vertical. Ann NY Acad Sci 871:221–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bortolami SB, Rocca S, Daros S, DiZio P, Lackner JR (2006) Mechanisms of human static spatial orientation. Exp Brain Res. DOI 10.1007/s00221-006-0387-9 (current issue)Google Scholar
  6. Bourdon B (1906) Influence de la force centrifuge sur la pereption de la verticale. (Influence of centrifugal force on the perception of the vertical.). Annee Psychol 12:84–94Google Scholar
  7. Bucher UJ, Mast F, Bischof N (1992) An analysis of ocular counterrolling in response to body positions in three-dimensional space. J Vest Res 2:213–220Google Scholar
  8. Citek K, Ebenholtz SM (1996) Vertical and horizontal eye displacement during static pitch and roll postures. J Vest Res 6:213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark B, Graybiel A (1962) Visual perception of the horizontal during prolonged exposure to radial acceleration on a centrifuge. J Exp Psychol 63:294–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clement G, Moore ST, Raphan T, Cohen B (2003) Perception of tilt (somatogravic illusion) in response to sustained linear acceleration during space flight. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  11. Colenbrander A (1964) Eye and otoliths. Aeromed Acta 9:45–91Google Scholar
  12. Correia MJ, Hixson WC, Niven JI (1968) On predictive equations for subjective judgments of vertical and horizon in a force field. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 230:1–20Google Scholar
  13. Curthoys IS, Dai MJ, Halmagyi GM (1990) Human otolithic function before and after unilateral vestibular neurectomy. J Vest Res 1:199–209Google Scholar
  14. De Beer GR (1947) How animals hold their heads. Proc Linn Soc Lond 159:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiZio P, Held R, Lackner JR, Shinn-Cunningham B, Durlach N (2001) Gravitoinertial force magnitude and direction influence head-centric auditory localization. J Neurophysiol 85:2455–2460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Glasauer S, Mittelstaedt H (1997) Perception of spatial orientation in different g-levels. J Gravit Physiol 4:5–8Google Scholar
  17. Glover S (2002) Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends Cogn Sci 6:271–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodale MA, Pelisson D, Prablanc C (1986) Large adjustments in visually guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement. Nature 320:745–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howard IP, Templeton (1966) Human spatial orientation. Wiley, New York, pp 488–496Google Scholar
  20. Kaptein RG, Van Gisbergen JA (2004) Interpretation of a discontinuity in the sense of verticality at large body tilt. J Neurophysiol 91:2205–2214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacDougall R (1906) The subjective horizon. Psych Rev 4:145–166Google Scholar
  22. Mast F, Jarchow T (1996) Perceived body position and the visual horizontal. Brain Res Bull 40:393–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mast FW, Newby NJ, Young LR (2002) Sensorimotor aspects of high-speed artificial gravity: II. The effect of head position on illusory self motion. J Vest Res 12:283–289Google Scholar
  24. Miller EF, Graybiel A (1962) Counterrolling of the human eyes produced by head tilt with respect to gravity. Acta Otolaryngol 54:479–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller EF, Fregly A, Graybiel A (1968) Visual horizontal perception in relation to otolith-function. Am J Psychol LXXXI:488–496Google Scholar
  26. Mittelstaedt H (1983) A new solution to the problem of the subjective vertical. Naturwissenschaften 70:272–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mittelstaedt H (1992) Somatic versus vestibular gravity reception in man. Ann NY Acad Sci 656:124–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pozzo T, Berthoz A, Lefort L (1990) Head stabilization during various locomotor tasks in humans I. Normal subjects. Exp Brain Res 82:97–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenhal U (1972) Vestibular macular mapping in man. Ann Otol Rhnol Laryngol 81:339–351Google Scholar
  30. Schöne H (1964) On the role of gravity in human spatial orientation. Aerosp Med 35:764–772Google Scholar
  31. Van Beuzekom AD, Van Gisbergen JA (2000) Properties of the internal representation of gravity inferred from spatial-direction and body-tilt estimates. J Neurophysiol 84:11–27PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone B. Bortolami
    • 1
  • Alberto Pierobon
    • 1
  • Paul DiZio
    • 1
    • 2
  • James R. Lackner
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Ashton Graybiel Spatial Orientation Laboratory, MS 033Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  2. 2.Volen Center for Complex SystemsBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations