Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 4, pp 989–994 | Cite as

Gravity modulates behaviour control strategy

  • Maria Gallagher
  • Iqra Arshad
  • Elisa Raffaella FerrèEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Human behaviour is a trade-off between exploitation of familiar resources and exploration of new ones. In a challenging environment—such as outer space—making the correct decision is vital. On Earth, gravity is always there, and is an important reference for behaviour. Thus, altered gravitational signals may affect behaviour control strategies. Here, we investigated whether changing the body’s orientation to the gravitational vector would modulate the balance between routine and novel behaviour. Participants completed a random number generation task while upright or supine. We found decreased randomness when participants were supine. In particular, the degree of equiprobability of pairs of consecutive responses was reduced in the supine orientation. Online gravitational signals may shape the balance between exploitation and exploration, in favour of more stereotyped and routine responses.

Keywords

Gravity Vestibular system Exploration Exploitation Cognition Behaviour control 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by an Experimental Psychology Society UK grant and a European Low Gravity Association Research (ELGRA) Prize to E.R.F. M.G. is further supported by an ESRC-DTC studentship.

Author contributions

IA performed experiments; MG, IA and ERF analysed data; ERF conceived and designed the research; ERF, MG and IA interpreted the results of the experiments; ERF and MG edited and revised the manuscript; all authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

References

  1. Bains W (2008) Random number generation and creativity. Med Hypotheses 70(1):186–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2007.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen JD, McClure SM, Yu AJ (2007) Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 362(1481):933–942.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniels C, Witt K, Wolff S, Jansen O, Deuschl G (2003) Rate dependency of the human cortical network subserving executive functions during generation of random number series—a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neurosci Lett 345(1):25–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00496-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daw ND, O’Doherty JP, Dayan P, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans. Nature 441(7095):876–879.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehaene S (1992) Varieties of Numerical Abilities. Cognition, 44, 1–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90049-N CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferrè ER, Vagnoni E, Haggard P (2013) Galvanic vestibular stimulation influences randomness of number generation. Exp Brain Res 224(2):233–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3302-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldberg E, Podell K, Lovell M (1994) Lateralization of frontal lobe functions and cognitive novelty. J of Neuropsych Clin Neurosci Am Psychiatric Publ.  https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.6.4.371 Google Scholar
  8. Green AM, Shaikh AG, Angelaki DE (2005) Sensory vestibular contributions to constructing internal models of self-motion. J Neural Eng 2(3):164–179.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/2/3/S02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greig F (2017) What it takes to be an astronaut—according to Chris Hadfield. INews, London, UK. https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/chris-hadfield-what-it-takes-astronaut/
  10. Hartmann M, Grabherr L, Mast FW (2012) Moving along the mental number line: Interactions between whole-body motion and numerical cognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38(6):1416–1427.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. JASP Team (2018) JASP Version 0.8 [Software]Google Scholar
  12. Jörges B, López-moliner J (2017) Gravity as a strong prior: implications for perception and action. Front Hum Neurosci 11:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaptein RG, Van Gisbergen JAM (2006) Canal and otolith contributions to visual orientation constancy during sinusoidal roll rotation. J Neurophysiol 95(3):1936–1948.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00856.2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lacquaniti F, Bosco G, Gravano S, Indovina I, La Scaleia B, Maffei V, Zago M (2015) Gravity in the brain as a reference for space and time perception. Multisens Res 28(5–6):397–426.  https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-00002471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lipnicki DM, Gunga HC (2009) Physical inactivity and cognitive functioning: Results from bed rest studies. Eur J Appl Physiol 105(1):27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-008-0869-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lipnicki DM, Gunga HC, Belavy DL, Felsenberg D (2009) Decision making after 50 days of simulated weightlessness. Brain Res 1280:84–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loetscher T, Brugger P (2007) Exploring number space by random digit generation. Exp Brain Res 180(4):655–665.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-0889-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loetscher T, Schwarz U, Schubiger M, Brugger P (2008) Head turns bias the brain’s internal random generator. Curr Biol 18(2):60–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macneil RR, Che H, Khan M (2016) Human space exploration: Neurosensory, perceptual, and neurocognitive considerations. Univ Tor Med J 93(2):19–26Google Scholar
  20. Manzey D, Lorenz B, Schiewe A, Finell G, Thiele G (1993) Behavioral aspects of human adaptation to space: analyses of cognitive and psychomotor performance in space during an 8-day space mission. Clin Investig 71:725–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merfeld DM, Zupan L, Peterka RJ (1999) Humans use internal models to estimate gravity and linear acceleration. Nature 398(6728):615–618.  https://doi.org/10.1038/19303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moser I, Vibert D, Caversaccio MD, Mast FW (2017) Acute peripheral vestibular deficit increases redundancy in random number generation. Exp Brain Res 235(2):627–637.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4829-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sexton NJ, Cooper RP (2014) An architecturally constrained model of random number generation and its application to modeling the effect of generation rate. Front Psychol 5:670.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steinberg F, Kalicinski M, Dalecki M, Bock O (2015) Human performance in a realistic instrument-control task during short-term microgravity. PLoS One 10(6):e0128992.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strangman GE, Sipes W, Beven G (2014) Human cognitive performance in spaceflight and analogue environments. Aviat Space Environ Med 85(10):1033–1048.  https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.3961.2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strenge H, Rogge C (2010) Strategic use of number representation is independent of test instruction in random number generation. Percept Mot Skills 110(2):453–462.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.110.2.453-462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sugrue LP, Corrado GS, Newsome WT (2004) Matching behaviour and the representation of value in the parietal cortex. Science 304(5678):1782–1787.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Towse JN (1998) On random generation and the central executive of working memory. Br J Psychol (Lond Engl 1953) 89(Pt 1)(25):77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1998.tb02674.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Towse JN, Neil D (1998) Analyzing human random generation behavior: A review of methods used and a computer program for describing performance. Beh Res Methods Instrum Comput 30(4):583–591.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Towse JN, Towse AS, Saito S, Maehara Y (2016) Joint cognition: thought contagion and the consequences of cooperation when sharing the task of random sequence generation. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151306 Google Scholar
  32. Vimal VP, DiZio P, Lackner JR (2017) Learning dynamic balancing in the roll plane with and without gravitational cues. Exp Brain Res 235(11):3495–3503.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5068-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wickman La (2006) Human performance considerations for a mars mission. In: 2006 IEEE aerospace conference, (January 2006), pp 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2006.1656147
  34. Wilson J (2017) Journey to mars overview. Retrieved November 6, 2017, from https://www.nasa.gov/content/journey-to-mars-overview. Accessed 6 Nov 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations