Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 223, Issue 1, pp 89–98 | Cite as

Roll aftereffects: influence of tilt and inter-stimulus interval

Research Article


A theme in sensory perception is that exposure to a stimulus causes perception of subsequent stimuli to be shifted in the opposite direction. Such phenomenon is known as aftereffect and has been extensively described in the visual system as well as recently described for the vestibular system during translation. It is known from aviation studies that after a maneuver in roll, pilots can experience a false perception of roll in the opposite direction. The magnitude and duration of this effect as well as the potential influence of the gravity vector have not previously been defined. In the current paper this roll aftereffect (RAE) is examined in response to whole-body roll about an earth-horizontal axis in eight healthy human subjects. The peak velocity of a 0.5-s-duration roll was varied based on previous responses to find the point where subjects perceived no motion. Without a preceding stimulus, the starting position (upright, 9° left, or 9° right) did not influence roll perception. The RAE was measured in a completely dark room using an adapting (first interval) stimulus consisting of 9° of roll over 1.5 s (peak velocity, 12°/s), delivered 0.5, 3, or 6 s prior to test (second interval) stimulus. A significant RAE was seen in all subjects. Half a second after the adapting stimulus, a test stimulus had to be on average 1.5 ± 0.4°/s in the opposite direction to be perceived as stationary. When the subject remained upright after the adapting stimulus, the RAE diminished with time, although it remained significantly larger at 3 and 6 s when the subject remained tilted after the adapting stimulus. These data demonstrate that roll perception can be influenced by small preceding stimuli and tilt causes a persistence of the RAE.


Gillingham illusion Post-roll illusion Aftereffects 



This work was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders K23 DC011298. Additional support was provided by a clinician-scientist grant from the Triological Society. Technical support was provided by Shawn Olmstead-Leahey. Thanks to my former mentor, Dr. Joseph L. Demer, for reviewing a pre-publication version of this manuscript.


  1. Addams R (1834) An account of a peculiar optical phenomenon seen after having looked at a moving body etc. Mag J Sci, 3rd series 5:373–374Google Scholar
  2. Anstis S, Verstraten FA, Mather G (1998) The motion aftereffect. Trends Cogn Sci 2:111–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow HB (1990) A theory about the functional role and synaptic mechanism of visual aftereffects. In: Blakemore C (ed) Vision: coding and efficiency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 363–375Google Scholar
  4. Benson AJ, Spencer MB, Stott JR (1986) Thresholds for the detection of the direction of whole-body, linear movement in the horizontal plane. Aviat Space Environ Med 57:1088–1096PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertolini G, Bockisch CJ, Straumann D, Zee DS, Ramat S (2008) Do humans show velocity-storage in the vertical rVOR? Prog Brain Res 171:207–210. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(08)00628-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertolini G, Ramat S, Laurens J, Bockisch CJ, Marti S, Straumann D, Palla A (2011) Velocity storage contribution to vestibular self-motion perception in healthy human subjects. J Neurophysiol 105:209–223. doi: 10.1152/jn.00154.2010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bestelmeyer PE, Rouger J, DeBruine LM, Belin P (2010) Auditory adaptation in vocal affect perception. Cognition 117:217–223. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carriot J, Barraud PA, Nougier V, Cian C (2006) Difference in the perception of the horizon during true and simulated tilt in the absence of semicircular canal cues. Exp Brain Res 174:158–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark B, Graybiel A (1968) Influence of contact cues on the perception of the oculogravic illusion. Acta Otolaryngol 65:373–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen H, Cohen B, Raphan T, Waespe W (1992) Habituation and adaptation of the vestibuloocular reflex: a model of differential control by the vestibulocerebellum. Exp Brain Res 90:526–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crane BT (2012) Fore-aft translation aftereffects. Exp Brain Res 219:477–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane BT, Demer JL (2000) Effect of adaptation to telescopic spectacles on the initial human horizontal vestibuloocular reflex. J Neurophysiol 83:38–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dai M, Klein A, Cohen B, Raphan T (1999) Model-based study of the human cupular time constant. J Vestib Res 9:293–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ercoline WR, Devilbiss CA, Yauch DW, Brown DL (2000) Post-roll effects on attitude perception: “the Gillingham illusion”. Aviat Space Environ Med 71:489–495PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fetsch CR, Turner AH, Deangelis GC, Angelaki DE (2009) Dynamic re-weighting of visual and vestibular cues during self-motion perception. J Neurosci 29:15601–15612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillingham KK (1992) The spatial disorientation problem in the United States Air Force. J Vestib Res 2:297–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Grabherr L, Nicoucar K, Mast FW, Merfeld DM (2008) Vestibular thresholds for yaw rotation about an earth-vertical axis as a function of frequency. Exp Brain Res 186:677–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graybiel A, Patterson JL Jr (1955) Thresholds of stimulation of the otolith organs as indicated by the oculogravic illusion. J Appl Physiol 7:666–670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Graybiel A, Johnson WH, Money KE, Malcolm RE, Jennings GL (1979) Oculogravic illusion in response to straight-ahead acceleration of CF-104 aircraft. Aviat Space Environ Med 50:382–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Groen EL, Jenkin HL, Howard IP (2002) Perception of self-tilt in a true and illusory vertical plane. Perception 31:1477–1490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guedry FE Jr (1974) Psychophysics of vestibular sensation. In: Kornhuber HH (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology. Springer, New York, pp 3–154Google Scholar
  22. Heinle TE, Ercoline WR (2002) Spatial disorientation: Causes consequences, and countermeasures for the USAF. Paper presented at the RTO HFM symposium on spatial disorientation in military vehicles: causes, consequences, and cures. La Coruña, Spain, 15–17 April 2002Google Scholar
  23. Hess BJ, Angelaki DE (1997) Inertial vestibular coding of motion: concepts and evidence. Curr Opin Neurobiol 7:860–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howard IP, Hu G (2001) Visually induced reorientation illusions. Perception 30:583–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Janssen M, Lauvenberg M, van der Ven W, Bloebaum T, Kingma H (2011) Perception threshold for tilt. Otol Neurotol 32:818–825. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31821c6c7b PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kanai R, Verstraten FA (2005) Perceptual manifestations of fast neural plasticity: motion priming, rapid motion aftereffect and perceptual sensitization. Vis Res 45:3109–3116. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.05.014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyons TJ, Ercoline WR, Freeman JE, Gillingham KK (1994) Classification problems of US Air Force spatial disorientation accidents, 1989–1991. Aviat Space Environ Med 65:147–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. MacNeilage PR, Banks MS, DeAngelis GC, Angelaki DE (2010) Vestibular heading discrimination and sensitivity to linear acceleration in head and world coordinates. J Neurosci 30:9084–9094. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1304-10.2010 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mann CW (1950) Studies in space perception. Naval School of Aviation Medicine, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  30. Mann CW, Dauterive HJ Jr (1949) The perception of the vertical. I. The modification of non-labyrinthine cues. J Exp Psychol 39:700–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merfeld DM, Gong W, Morrissey J, Saginaw M, Haburcakova C, Lewis RF (2006) Acclimation to chronic constant-rate peripheral stimulation provided by a vestibular prosthesis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53:2362–2372. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2006.883645 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miles FA, Eighmy BB (1980) Long-term adaptive changes in primate vestibuloocular reflex. I. Behavioral observations. J Neurophysiol 43:1406–1425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nooij SA, Groen EL (2011) Rolling into spatial disorientation: simulator demonstration of the post-roll (Gillingham) illusion. Aviat Space Environ Med 82:505–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paige GD, Tomko DL (1991) Eye movement responses to linear head motion in the squirrel monkey. I. Basic characteristics. J Neurophysiol 65:1170–1182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Raphan T, Matsuo V, Cohen B (1979) Velocity storage in the vestibulo-ocular reflex arc (VOR). Exp Brain Res 35:229–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reinhardt-Rutland AH (1998) Increasing-loudness aftereffect following decreasing-intensity adaptation: spectral dependence in interotic and monotic testing. Perception 27:473–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roditi RE, Crane BT (2012a) Directional asymmetries and age effects in human self-motion perception. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13:381–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roditi RE, Crane BT (2012b) Suprathreshold asymmetries in human motion perception. Exp Brain Res 219:369–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seidman SH, Telford L, Paige GD (1998) Tilt perception during dynamic linear acceleration. Exp Brain Res 119:307–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seizova-Cajic T, Smith JL, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC (2007) Proprioceptive movement illusions due to prolonged stimulation: reversals and aftereffects. PLoS One 2:e1037. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001037 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson P, Burr D (2009) Visual aftereffects. Curr Biol 19:R11–R14. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.10.014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tweed D, Fetter M, Sievering D, Misslisch H, Koenig E (1994) Rotational kinematics of the human vestibuloocular reflex. II. Velocity steps. J Neurophysiol 72:2480–2489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ullman S, Schechtman G (1982) Adaptation and gain normalization. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 216:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001a) The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63:1293–1313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001b) The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling. Percept Psychophys 63:1314–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neurobiology and AnatomyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations