» Articles » PMID: 16571732

Roll Rotation Cues Influence Roll Tilt Perception Assayed Using a Somatosensory Technique

Overview
Journal J Neurophysiol
Specialties Neurology
Physiology
Date 2006 Mar 31
PMID 16571732
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We investigated how the nervous system processes ambiguous cues from the otolith organs by measuring roll tilt perception elicited by two motion paradigms. In one paradigm (tilt), eight subjects were sinusoidally tilted in roll with the axis of rotation near ear level. Stimulus frequencies ranged from 0.005 to 0.7 Hz, and the peak amplitude of tilt was 20 degrees . During this paradigm, subjects experienced a sinusoidal variation of interaural gravitational force with a peak of 0.34 g. The second motion paradigm (translation) was designed to yield the same sinusoidal variation in interaural force but did not include a roll canal cue. This was achieved by sinusoidally translating the subjects along their interaural axis. For the 0.7-Hz translation trial, the subjects were simply translated from side to side. A centrifuge was used for the 0.005- to 0.5-Hz translation trials; the subjects were rotated in yaw at 250 degrees /s for 5 min before initiating sinusoidal translations yielding an interaural otolith stimulus composed of both centrifugal and radial acceleration. Using a somatosensory task to measure roll tilt perception, we found substantial differences in tilt perception during the two motion paradigms. Because the primary difference between the two motion paradigms was the presence of roll canal cues during roll tilt trials, these perceptual differences suggest that canal cues influence tilt perception. Specifically, rotational cues provided by the semicircular canals help the CNS resolve ambiguous otolith cues during head tilt, yielding more accurate tilt perception.

Citing Articles

Amplification of vibration induced nystagmus in patients with peripheral vestibular loss by head tilt.

Shemesh A, Kattah J, Zee D, Zuma E Maia F, Otero-Millan J Front Neurol. 2024; 15:1420699.

PMID: 39479011 PMC: 11523294. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1420699.


Effects of motion paradigm on human perception of tilt and translation.

Clement G, Beaton K, Reschke M, Wood S Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):1430.

PMID: 35082357 PMC: 8792002. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-05483-6.


An Implanted Vestibular Prosthesis Improves Spatial Orientation in Animals with Severe Vestibular Damage.

Karmali F, Haburcakova C, Gong W, Della Santina C, Merfeld D, Lewis R J Neurosci. 2021; 41(17):3879-3888.

PMID: 33731447 PMC: 8084320. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2204-20.2021.


Abnormal Tilt Perception During Centrifugation in Patients with Vestibular Migraine.

Wang J, Lewis R J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2016; 17(3):253-8.

PMID: 26956976 PMC: 4854827. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-016-0559-7.


Modeling human perception of orientation in altered gravity.

Clark T, Newman M, Oman C, Merfeld D, Young L Front Syst Neurosci. 2015; 9:68.

PMID: 25999822 PMC: 4419856. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00068.


References
1.
Merfeld D . Modeling the vestibulo-ocular reflex of the squirrel monkey during eccentric rotation and roll tilt. Exp Brain Res. 1995; 106(1):123-34. DOI: 10.1007/BF00241362. View

2.
Merfeld D, Park S, Gianna-Poulin C, Black F, Wood S . Vestibular perception and action employ qualitatively different mechanisms. II. VOR and perceptual responses during combined Tilt&Translation. J Neurophysiol. 2005; 94(1):199-205. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00905.2004. View

3.
Glasauer S . Linear acceleration perception: frequency dependence of the hilltop illusion. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1995; 520 Pt 1:37-40. DOI: 10.3109/00016489509125184. View

4.
Merfeld D, Teiwes W, Clarke A, Scherer H, Young L . The dynamic contributions of the otolith organs to human ocular torsion. Exp Brain Res. 1996; 110(2):315-21. DOI: 10.1007/BF00228562. View

5.
Mast F, Jarchow T . Perceived body position and the visual horizontal. Brain Res Bull. 1996; 40(5-6):393-7; discussion 397-8. DOI: 10.1016/0361-9230(96)00132-3. View