Limits...
Storing upright turns: how visual and vestibular cues interact during the encoding and recalling process.

Vidal M, Bülthoff HH - Exp Brain Res (2009)

Bottom Line: First, we found that in none of the conditions did the reproduced motion dynamics follow that of the presentation phase (Gaussian angular velocity profiles).Third, when the intersensory gain was preserved, the bimodal reproduction was more precise (reduced variance) and lay between the two unimodal reproductions.Fourth, when the intersensory gain was modified, the bimodal reproduction resulted in a substantially larger change for the body than for the visual scene rotations, which indicates that vision prevails for this rotation displacement task when a matching problem is introduced.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. manuel.vidal@college-de-france.fr

ABSTRACT
Many previous studies have focused on how humans combine inputs provided by different modalities for the same physical property. However, it is not yet very clear how different senses providing information about our own movements combine in order to provide a motion percept. We designed an experiment to investigate how upright turns are stored, and particularly how vestibular and visual cues interact at the different stages of the memorization process (encoding/recalling). Subjects experienced passive yaw turns stimulated in the vestibular modality (whole-body rotations) and/or in the visual modality (limited lifetime star-field rotations), with the visual scene turning 1.5 times faster when combined (unnoticed conflict). Then they were asked to actively reproduce the rotation displacement in the opposite direction, with body cues only, visual cues only, or both cues with either the same or a different gain factor. First, we found that in none of the conditions did the reproduced motion dynamics follow that of the presentation phase (Gaussian angular velocity profiles). Second, the unimodal recalling of turns was largely uninfluenced by the other sensory cue that it could be combined with during the encoding. Therefore, turns in each modality, visual, and vestibular are stored independently. Third, when the intersensory gain was preserved, the bimodal reproduction was more precise (reduced variance) and lay between the two unimodal reproductions. This suggests that with both visual and vestibular cues available, these combine in order to improve the reproduction. Fourth, when the intersensory gain was modified, the bimodal reproduction resulted in a substantially larger change for the body than for the visual scene rotations, which indicates that vision prevails for this rotation displacement task when a matching problem is introduced.

Show MeSH
Distribution of the amplitude ratio variation due to the matching error when the vision to body gain is changed from 1.5 (same as presented) to 1.0 (different than presented). 84.5% goes in the increase of the body rotation whereas only 15.5% in the decrease of the visual rotation. In other words, subjects chose implicitly to match the visual turn correctly rather than the body turn
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2800859&req=5

Fig7: Distribution of the amplitude ratio variation due to the matching error when the vision to body gain is changed from 1.5 (same as presented) to 1.0 (different than presented). 84.5% goes in the increase of the body rotation whereas only 15.5% in the decrease of the visual rotation. In other words, subjects chose implicitly to match the visual turn correctly rather than the body turn

Mentions: When the vision/body gain factor was altered for the reproduction, using a gain of 1 instead of 1.5, we introduced a matching problem in the sense that it becomes impossible to simultaneously match both the visual and body rotations during the reproduction. We calculated the relative variation of the visual or body reproduction as follows:\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$ \Updelta_{\text{Vision}} = {\frac{{r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Visual}} - r_{{{\text{Same}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Visual}} }}{{r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Visual}} - r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Body}} }}}\quad {\text{and}}\quad \Updelta_{\text{Body}} = {\frac{{r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Body}} - r_{{{\text{Same}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Body}} }}{{r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Visual}} - r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Body}} }}}, $$\end{document}where is the visual or body amplitude ratio in the same or different gain conditions (light and dark gray lines shown in Fig. 6a). The reproduced body rotation increases by 84.5% of the variation (see Fig. 7), whereas the reproduced visual rotation decreases by only 15.5% (significant difference, Student test: t(11) = 11.45; p < 0.001). In other words, the visual matching remains rather unchanged whereas the body matching becomes totally inappropriate, as compared to the baseline performance yielded with the VB to VBsame.Fig. 7


Storing upright turns: how visual and vestibular cues interact during the encoding and recalling process.

Vidal M, Bülthoff HH - Exp Brain Res (2009)

Distribution of the amplitude ratio variation due to the matching error when the vision to body gain is changed from 1.5 (same as presented) to 1.0 (different than presented). 84.5% goes in the increase of the body rotation whereas only 15.5% in the decrease of the visual rotation. In other words, subjects chose implicitly to match the visual turn correctly rather than the body turn
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2800859&req=5

Fig7: Distribution of the amplitude ratio variation due to the matching error when the vision to body gain is changed from 1.5 (same as presented) to 1.0 (different than presented). 84.5% goes in the increase of the body rotation whereas only 15.5% in the decrease of the visual rotation. In other words, subjects chose implicitly to match the visual turn correctly rather than the body turn
Mentions: When the vision/body gain factor was altered for the reproduction, using a gain of 1 instead of 1.5, we introduced a matching problem in the sense that it becomes impossible to simultaneously match both the visual and body rotations during the reproduction. We calculated the relative variation of the visual or body reproduction as follows:\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$ \Updelta_{\text{Vision}} = {\frac{{r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Visual}} - r_{{{\text{Same}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Visual}} }}{{r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Visual}} - r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Body}} }}}\quad {\text{and}}\quad \Updelta_{\text{Body}} = {\frac{{r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Body}} - r_{{{\text{Same}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Body}} }}{{r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Visual}} - r_{{{\text{Different}}\,{\text{gain}}}}^{\text{Body}} }}}, $$\end{document}where is the visual or body amplitude ratio in the same or different gain conditions (light and dark gray lines shown in Fig. 6a). The reproduced body rotation increases by 84.5% of the variation (see Fig. 7), whereas the reproduced visual rotation decreases by only 15.5% (significant difference, Student test: t(11) = 11.45; p < 0.001). In other words, the visual matching remains rather unchanged whereas the body matching becomes totally inappropriate, as compared to the baseline performance yielded with the VB to VBsame.Fig. 7

Bottom Line: First, we found that in none of the conditions did the reproduced motion dynamics follow that of the presentation phase (Gaussian angular velocity profiles).Third, when the intersensory gain was preserved, the bimodal reproduction was more precise (reduced variance) and lay between the two unimodal reproductions.Fourth, when the intersensory gain was modified, the bimodal reproduction resulted in a substantially larger change for the body than for the visual scene rotations, which indicates that vision prevails for this rotation displacement task when a matching problem is introduced.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. manuel.vidal@college-de-france.fr

ABSTRACT
Many previous studies have focused on how humans combine inputs provided by different modalities for the same physical property. However, it is not yet very clear how different senses providing information about our own movements combine in order to provide a motion percept. We designed an experiment to investigate how upright turns are stored, and particularly how vestibular and visual cues interact at the different stages of the memorization process (encoding/recalling). Subjects experienced passive yaw turns stimulated in the vestibular modality (whole-body rotations) and/or in the visual modality (limited lifetime star-field rotations), with the visual scene turning 1.5 times faster when combined (unnoticed conflict). Then they were asked to actively reproduce the rotation displacement in the opposite direction, with body cues only, visual cues only, or both cues with either the same or a different gain factor. First, we found that in none of the conditions did the reproduced motion dynamics follow that of the presentation phase (Gaussian angular velocity profiles). Second, the unimodal recalling of turns was largely uninfluenced by the other sensory cue that it could be combined with during the encoding. Therefore, turns in each modality, visual, and vestibular are stored independently. Third, when the intersensory gain was preserved, the bimodal reproduction was more precise (reduced variance) and lay between the two unimodal reproductions. This suggests that with both visual and vestibular cues available, these combine in order to improve the reproduction. Fourth, when the intersensory gain was modified, the bimodal reproduction resulted in a substantially larger change for the body than for the visual scene rotations, which indicates that vision prevails for this rotation displacement task when a matching problem is introduced.

Show MeSH