Experimental Brain Research

, 213:245 | Cite as

It is all me: the effect of viewpoint on visual–vestibular recalibration

  • Judith Schomaker
  • Joachim Tesch
  • Heinrich H. Bülthoff
  • Jean-Pierre Bresciani
Research Article


Participants performed a visual–vestibular motor recalibration task in virtual reality. The task consisted of keeping the extended arm and hand stable in space during a whole-body rotation induced by a robotic wheelchair. Performance was first quantified in a pre-test in which no visual feedback was available during the rotation. During the subsequent adaptation phase, optical flow resulting from body rotation was provided. This visual feedback was manipulated to create the illusion of a smaller rotational movement than actually occurred, hereby altering the visual–vestibular mapping. The effects of the adaptation phase on hand stabilization performance were measured during a post-test that was identical to the pre-test. Three different groups of subjects were exposed to different perspectives on the visual scene, i.e., first-person, top view, or mirror view. Sensorimotor adaptation occurred for all three viewpoint conditions, performance in the post-test session showing a marked under-compensation relative to the pre-test performance. In other words, all viewpoints gave rise to a remapping between vestibular input and the motor output required to stabilize the arm. Furthermore, the first-person and mirror view adaptation induced a significant decrease in variability of the stabilization performance. Such variability reduction was not observed for the top view adaptation. These results suggest that even if all three viewpoints can evoke substantial adaptation aftereffects, the more naturalistic first-person view and the richer mirror view should be preferred when reducing motor variability constitutes an important issue.


Sensorimotor learning Visual Vestibular Adaptation Motor control 



This research was supported by the Max Planck Society and also by WCU (World Class University) program funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology through the National Research Foundation of Korea (R31-10008). The authors thank Heike Bischoff, Michael Kerger, and Betty Mohler for technical support.


  1. Adamovich SV, Fluet GG, Tunik E, Merians AS (2009) Sensorimotor training in virtual reality: a review. NeuroRehabilitation 25:29–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong TR (1970) Feedback and perceptual-motor skill learning: a review of information feedback and manual guidance training techniques. Technical Report No. 25, Human Performance Center, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  3. Blouin J, Guillaud E, Bresciani JP, Guerraz M, Simoneau M (2010) Insights into the control of arm movement during body motion as revealed by EMG analyses. Brain Res 1309:40–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bresciani JP, Blouin J, Sarlegna F, Bourdin C, Vercher JL, Gauthier GM (2002) On-line versus off-line vestibular-evoked control of goal-directed arm movements. NeuroReport 13:1563–1566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bresciani JP, Gauthier GM, Vercher J, Blouin J (2005) On the nature of the vestibular control of arm-reaching movements during whole-body rotations. Exp Brain Res 164:431–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan M (2001) Embodiment, perception, and virtual reality. LNAI 2117:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creem-Regehr SH, Willemsen P, Gooch AA, Thompson WB (2005) The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: implications for real and virtual indoor environments. Perception 34:191–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guillaud E, Simoneau M, Gauthier GM, Blouin J (2006) Controlling reaching movements during self-motion: body-fixed versus Earth-fixed targets. Mot Control 10:330–347Google Scholar
  10. Harris LR, Jenkin M, Zikovitz DC (2000) Visual and non-visual cues in the perception of linear self-motion. Exp Brain Res 135:12–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hay JC, Pick HLJ (1966) Gaze-contingent prism adaptation: optical and motor factors. J Exp Psychol 72:640–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henderson A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levin M (2007) Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review of its effectiveness for upper limb motor recovery. Top Stroke Rehabil 14:52–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Israël I, Chapuis N, Glasauer S, Charade O, Berthoz A (1993) Estimation of passive horizontal linear whole-body displacement in humans. J Neurophysiol 70:1270–1273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Israël I, Sievering D, Koenig E (1995) Self-rotation estimate about the vertical axis. Acta Otolaryngol 115:3–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ivanenko Y, Grasso R, Israël I, Berthoz A (1997) Spatial orientation in humans: perception of angular whole-body displacements in two-dimensional trajectories. Exp Brain Res 117:419–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jürgens R, Nasios G, Becker W (2003) Vestibular, optokinetic, and cognitive contribution to the guidance of passive self-rotation toward instructed targets. Exp Brain Res 151:90–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kammers MPM, de Vignemont F, Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC (2009) The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia 47:204–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Körding KP, Wolpert DM (2004) The loss function of sensorimotor learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9839–9842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Twisk JW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC (1999) Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet 354:191–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJH (2003) Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34:2181–2186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loomis JM, Knapp JM (2003) Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. In: Hettinger LJ, Haas MW (eds) Virtual and adaptive environments. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 21–46Google Scholar
  22. Loomis JM, Blascovich JJ, Beall AC (1999) Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 31:557–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macedo JA, Kaber DB, Endsley MR, Powanusorn P, Myung S (1998) The effect of automated compensation for incongruent axes on teleoperator performance. Hum Factors 40:541–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mahncke HW, Bronstone A, Merzenich MM (2006) Brain plasticity and functional losses in the aged: scientific bases for a novel intervention. Prog Brain Res 157:81–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Masiero S, Celia A, Rosati G, Armani M (2007) Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88:142–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olsen TS (1990) Arm and leg paresis as outcome predictors in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 21:247–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Platz T, Eickhof C, van Kaick S, Engel U, Pinkowski C et al (2005) Impairment-oriented training or Bobath therapy for severe arm paresis after stroke: a single-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 19:714–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Proteau L, Marteniuk RG, Levesque L (1992) A sensorimotor basis for motor learning: evidence indicating specificity of practice. Q J Exp Psychol A 44:557–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Redding GM, Rossetti Y, Wallace B (2005) Applications of prism adaptation: a tutorial in theory and method. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:431–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ring H, Rosenthal N (2005) Controlled study of neuroprosthetic functional electrical stimulation in sub-acute post-stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med 37:32–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Salamin P, Thalmann D (2010) Providing the best third-person perspective to a video-through HMD. VRLAB-CONF-2010-003Google Scholar
  32. Salamin P, Thalmann D, Vexo F (2006) Benefits of a third-person perspective in virtual and augmented reality. Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology. ACM, New-York, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  33. Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H (2001) The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence 10:266–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siekierka EM, Eng K, Bassetti C, Blickenstorfer A, Cameirao MS et al (2007) New technologies and concepts for rehabilitation in the acute phase of stroke: a collaborative matrix. Neurodegener Dis 4:57–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Summers JJ, Kagerer FA, Garry MI, Hiraga CY, Loftus A et al (2007) Bilateral and unilateral movement training on upper limb function in chronic stroke patients: a TMS study. J Neurol Sci 252:76–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tarr MJ, Warren WH (2002) Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience and beyond. Nat Neurosci 5(Suppl):1089–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Todorov E, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1997) Augmented feedback presented in a virtual environment accelerates learning of a difficult motor task. J Mot Behav 29:147–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tremblay L (2010) Vision and goal-directed movement: neurobehavioral perspectives. In: Elliott D, Khan M (eds) Vision and movement: control of directed action. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 281–291Google Scholar
  39. Tremblay L, Proteau L (1998) Specificity of practice: the case of powerlifting. Res Q Exerc Sport 69:284–289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ustinova KI, Perkins J, Szostakowski L, Tamkei LS, Leonard WA (2010) Effect of viewing angle on arm reaching while standing in a virtual environment: potential for virtual rehabilitation. Acta Psychol (Amst) 133:180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welch RB, Widawski MH, Harrington J, Warren DH (1979) An examination of the relationship between visual capture and prism adaptation. Percept Psychophys 25:126–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive PsychologyVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Brain and Cognitive EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulKorea
  4. 4.Laboratory of Psychology and NeuroCognition (UMR CNRS 5105 UPMF)GrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations