No abstract

BackgroundThe selection of appropriate frames of reference (FOR) is a key factor in the elaboration of spatial perception and the production of robust interaction with our environment. The extent to which we perceive the head axis orientation (subjective head orientation, SHO) with both accuracy and precision likely contributes to the efficiency of these spatial interactions. A first goal of this study was to investigate the relative contribution of both the visual and egocentric FOR (centre-of-mass) in the SHO processing. A second goal was to investigate humans' ability to process SHO in various sensory response modalities (visual, haptic and visuo-haptic), and the way they modify the reliance to either the visual or egocentric FORs. A third goal was to question whether subjects combined visual and haptic cues optimally to increase SHO certainty and to decrease the FORs disruption effect.Methodology/Principal FindingsThirteen subjects were asked to indicate their SHO while the visual and/or egocentric FORs were deviated. Four results emerged from our study. First, visual rod settings to SHO were altered by the tilted visual frame but not by the egocentric FOR alteration, whereas no haptic settings alteration was observed whether due to the egocentric FOR alteration or the tilted visual frame. These results are modulated by individual analysis. Second, visual and egocentric FOR dependency appear to be negatively correlated. Third, the response modality enrichment appears to improve SHO. Fourth, several combination rules of the visuo-haptic cues such as the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), Winner-Take-All (WTA) or Unweighted Mean (UWM) rule seem to account for SHO improvements. However, the UWM rule seems to best account for the improvement of visuo-haptic estimates, especially in situations with high FOR incongruence. Finally, the data also indicated that FOR reliance resulted from the application of UWM rule. This was observed more particularly, in the visual dependent subject. Conclusions: Taken together, these findings emphasize the importance of identifying individual spatial FOR preferences to assess the efficiency of our interaction with the environment whilst performing spatial tasks.

The identification of subject’s perceptual style regarding multisensory integration is a central issue for spatial perception and sensorimotricity. In spatial orientation studies, the weighting of visual frame of reference (visual field dependence) is classically assessed by using verticality perception tasks, and especially the mechanical 3D rod-and-frame test (3D RFT). The validation of a 2D computer-based version of the RFT by virtue of its portability would facilitate the identification of modes of spatial referencing for the design and evaluation of sensory and motor rehabilitation programs. We question here whether the computerized 2D RFT yields frame effects similar (in amplitude, direction) and correlated to those induced by the mechanical 3D RFT. In both devices, 35 young and healthy males’ subjects were seated and tasked with aligning a rod to the gravity vertical within a square frame that was tilted at 18Âř. The results showed significantly larger rod deviations from the verticality in the 3D RFT. 3D and 2D RFT errors significantly correlated but shared a small amount of common variance ( r 2 = 0.35). In addition, left-right tilt asymmetry changes from one device to another. These results suggest that the mechanical 3D RFT for verticality perception remains a more robust test for identifying the subject’s perceptual style.