Kinaesthetic and visual perceptions of orientations

Information, Organisation et Action, EA 4260, UFR STAPS, University of Caen Basse Normandie, 14032 Caen Cedex, France.
Perception (Impact Factor: 0.91). 01/2009; 38(7):988-1001. DOI: 10.1068/p6132
Source: PubMed


In the present study we compare the kinaesthetic and visual perception of the vertical and horizontal orientations (subjective vertical and subjective horizontal) to determine whether the perception of cardinal orientations is amodal or modality-specific. The influence of methodological factors on the accuracy of perception is also investigated by varying the stimulus position as a function of its initial tilt (clockwise or counterclockwise) and its angle (22 degrees, 45 degrees, 67 degrees, and 90 degrees) in respect to its physical orientation. Ten participants estimated the vertical and horizontal orientations by repositioning a rod in the kinaesthetic condition or two luminous points, forming a 'virtual line' in the visual condition. Results within the visual modality replicated previous findings by showing that estimation of the physical orientations is very accurate regardless of the initial position of the virtual line. In contrast, the perception of orientation with the kinaesthetic modality was less accurate and systematically influenced by the angle between the initial position of the rod and the required orientation. The findings question the assumption that the subjective vertical is derived from an internal representation of gravity and highlight the necessity of taking into account methodological factors in studies on subjective orientations.

Download full-text


Available from: François Jouen,
    • "Discrepancies among the paradigms of the various studies may be caused by differing methodologic details that affected the outcome of testing [11]. For example, Hong et al. had subjects rotate a manipulandum by hand, thus perhaps inadvertently using kinesthetic information to augment visual input [7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 'bucket test' may indicate that patients with known vestibular disorders have spatial orientation deficits but due to the low receiver operating characteristics (ROC) values it is not useful for screening people for vestibular impairments. 1) to verify that patients with unilateral peripheral vestibular weakness (UW) differ from normal subjects on the bucket test, 2) to determine if patients with unilateral benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) differ from normal subjects, 3) to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Patients with UW (n = 25) and BPPV (n = 25) were compared to normals (n = 50). Subjects looked into a clean bucket with a vertical line on the bottom, which rested on a table. It was rotated, clockwise or counterclockwise, for three trials per direction until the subject indicated that the line was vertical. The dependent measure was the mean absolute value of the deviations from the true vertical. Some, but not all, patients' responses differed from normal subjects but responses also differed by age and sex. ROC values were all weak, i.e. < 0.8. No good cut-off points differentiated controls from patients. Thus, although the bucket test is useful for describing spatial deficits in patients this test is not useful for screening people for possible vestibular impairments.
    Acta oto-laryngologica 06/2012; 132(8):850-4. DOI:10.3109/00016489.2012.668710 · 1.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "(5) Participant's posture: in most studies the participants were tested while sitting upright, although tests in a supine position (e.g. Saj et al., 2005b; Funk et al., 2010a) or standing upright (Lejeune et al., 2009) were also described. (6) Passive versus active bar rotation: across the various studies, healthy participants or patients were able to manually control the rotation of the bar in the socalled 'visuo-haptic' paradigm (Saj et al., 2006; Pagarkar et al., 2008) or, they had to look at a bar rotated by the examiner (Vingerhoets et al., 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study sought to provide norms for a simple test of visual perception of verticality (subjective visual vertical). The study was designed as a cohort study with a balanced design. The setting was the Rehabilitation Department of a University Hospital. Twenty-two healthy adults, of 23-58 years, 11 men (three left handed) and 11 women (three left handed) were enrolled. A luminous bar was displayed on a PC screen, and rotated in steps of 0.4° until the participant perceived it as vertical. A positive sign was attributed to a clockwise rotation of the bar. The detection threshold was set at the angle corresponding to a perceived vertical, which the participant then selected out of three subsequent alternatives (each at +0.4 or -0.4°). The participant's position (sitting vs. standing) and the preset angle of presentation (clockwise vs. counterclockwise) were balanced across sex. The constant or deviation error (dE, in degrees) and the absolute errors (aE, in degrees) were computed. An analysis of variance model tested the dependence of dE on sex, posture, age, handedness, and the preset angle. Both dE and aE were unrelated to sex, posture, handedness, and the preset angle, but were dependent on age (junior, ≤43 years; senior, >43 years). The mean dE was -0.14 ± 0.60 in the junior and 0.42 ± 0.64 in the senior group, respectively. The minimal real difference of the dE was 0.75 and 0.25 in the junior and the senior group, respectively. The overall median aE was 0.4 (5th-95th percentile 0-1.2) in the junior and 0.8 (0.4-1.46) in the senior group, respectively. The whole test took no longer than 15 min in healthy participants, and 25 min in stroke patients. The test was applied to three subacute stroke patients with left hemiparesis, of whom two showed left spatial hemineglect. All three patients presented with a significant clockwise dE. This simple test appears to be valid for the routine assessment of spatial disorders in neurological impairments.
    International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation 09/2011; 34(4):307-15. DOI:10.1097/MRR.0b013e32834c45bc · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Yet, this somatosensory method is less accurate than the visual method and shows already in upright position a large intra-individual variability for setting the bar earthvertical (Bauermeister 1964; Kerkhoff 1999; Lejeune et al. 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Estimation of subjective whole-body tilt in stationary roll positions after rapid rotations shows hysteresis. We asked whether this phenomenon is also present during continuous quasi-static whole-body rotation and whether gravitational cues are a major contributing factor. Using a motorized turntable, 8 healthy subjects were rotated continuously about the earth-horizontal naso-occipital axis (earth-vertical roll plane) and the earth-vertical naso-occipital axis (earth-horizontal roll plane). In both planes, three full constant velocity rotations (2°/s) were completed in clockwise and counterclockwise directions (acceleration = 0.05°/s(2), velocity plateau reached after 40 s). Subjects adjusted a visual line along the perceived longitudinal body axis (pLBA) every 2 s. pLBA deviation from the longitudinal body axis was plotted as a function of whole-body roll position, and a sine function was fitted. At identical whole-body earth-vertical roll plane positions, pLBA differed depending on whether the position was reached by a rotation from upright or by passing through upside down. After the first 360° rotation, pLBA at upright whole-body position deviated significantly in the direction of rotation relative to pLBA prior to rotation initiation. This deviation remained unchanged after subsequent full rotations. In contrast, earth-horizontal roll plane rotations resulted in similar pLBA before and after each rotation cycle. We conclude that the deviation of pLBA in the direction of rotation during quasi-static earth-vertical roll plane rotations reflects static antihysteresis and might be a consequence of the known static hysteresis of ocular counterroll: a visual line that is perceived that earth-vertical is expected to be antihysteretic, if ocular torsion is hysteretic.
    Experimental Brain Research 02/2011; 209(3):443-54. DOI:10.1007/s00221-011-2572-8 · 2.04 Impact Factor
Show more