1. Forward reaching movements made during body rotation generate tangential Coriolis forces that are proportional to the cross product of the angular velocity of rotation and the linear velocity of the arm. Coriolis forces are inertial forces that do not involve mechanical contact. Virtually no constant centrifugal forces will be present in the background when motion of the arm generates transient Coriolis forces if the radius of body rotation is small. 2. We measured the trajectories of arm movements made in darkness to a visual target that was extinguished as movement began. The reaching movements were made prerotation, during rotation at 10 rpm in a fully enclosed rotating room, and postrotation. During testing the subject was seated at the center of the room and pointed radially. Neither visual nor tactile feedback about movement accuracy was present. 3. In experiment 1, subjects reached at a fast or slow rate and their hands made contact with a horizontal surface at the end of the reach. Their initial perrotary movements were highly significantly deviated relative to prerotation in both trajectories and end-points in the direction of the transient Coriolis forces that had been generated during the reaches. Despite the absence of visual and tactile feedback about reaching accuracy, all subjects rapidly regained straight movement trajectories and accurate endpoints. Postrotation, transient errors of opposite sign were present for both trajectories and endpoints. 4. In a second experiment the conditions were identical except that subjects pointed just above the location of the extinguished target so that no surface contact was involved. All subjects showed significant initial perrotation deviations of trajectories and endpoints in the direction of the transient Coriolis forces. With repeated reaches the trajectories, as viewed from above, again became straight, but there was only partial restoration of endpoint accuracy, so that subjects reached in a straight line to the wrong place. Aftereffects of opposite sign were transiently present in the postrotary movements. 5. These observations fail to support current equilibrium point models, both alpha and lambda, of movement control. Such theories would not predict endpoint errors under our experimental conditions, in which the Coriolis force is absent at the beginning and end of a movement. Our results indicate that detailed aspects of movement trajectory are being continuously monitored on the basis of proprioceptive feedback in relation to motor commands. Adaptive compensations can be initiated after one perturbation despite the absence of either visual or tactile feedback about movement trajectory and endpoint error. Moreover, movement trajectory and end-point can be remapped independently.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

The control and perception of body orientation and motion are subserved by multiple sensory and motor mechanisms ranging from relatively simple, peripheral mechanisms to complex ones involving the highest levels of cognitive function and sensory-motor integration. Vestibular contributions to body orientation and to spatial localization of auditory and visual stimuli have long been recognized. These contributions are reviewed here along with new insights relating to sensory-motor calibration of the body gained from space flight, parabolic flight, and artificial gravity environments. Recently recognized contributions of proprioceptive and somatosensory signals to the appreciation of body orientation and configuration are described. New techniques for stabilizing posture by means of haptic touch and for studying and modeling postural mechanisms are reviewed. Path integration, place cells, and head direction cells are described along with implications for using immersive virtual environments for training geographic spatial knowledge of real environments.

1. Reaching movements made in a rotating room generate Coriolis forces that are directly proportional to the cross product of the room's angular velocity and the arm's linear velocity. Such Coriolis forces are inertial forces not involving mechanical contact with the arm. 2. We measured the trajectories of arm movements made in darkness to a visual target that was extinguished at the onset of each reach. Prerotation subjects pointed with both the right and left arms in alternating sets of eight movements. During rotation at 10 rpm, the subjects reached only with the right arm. Postrotation, the subjects pointed with the left and right arms, starting with the left, in alternating sets of eight movements. 3. The initial perrotary reaching movements of the right arm were highly deviated both in movement path and endpoint relative to the prerotation reaches of the right arm. With additional movements, subjects rapidly regained straight movement paths and accurate endpoints despite the absence of visual or tactile feedback about reaching accuracy. The initial postrotation reaches of the left arm followed straight paths to the wrong endpoint. The initial postrotation reaches of the right arm had paths with mirror image curvature to the initial perrotation reaches of the right arm but went to the correct endpoint. 4. These observations are inconsistent with current equilibrium point models of movement control. Such theories predict accurate reaches under our experimental conditions. Our observations further show independent implementation of movement and posture, as evidenced by transfer of endpoint adaptation to the nonexposed arm without transfer of path adaptation. Endpoint control may occur at a relatively central stage that represents general constraints such as gravitoinertial force background or egocentric direction relative to both arms, and control of path may occur at a more peripheral stage that represents moments of inertia and muscle dynamics unique to each limb. 5. Endpoint and path adaptation occur despite the absence both of mechanical contact cues about the perturbing force and visual or tactile cues about movement accuracy. These findings point to the importance of muscle spindle signals, monitoring of motor commands, and possibly joint and tendon receptors in a detailed trajectory monitoring process. Muscle spindle primary and secondary afferent signals may differentially influence adaptation of movement shape and endpoint, respectively.

This report represents a committee summary of the current state of knowledge regarding aftereffects and sense of presence in virtual environments (VEs). The work presented in this article, and the proposed research agenda, are the result of a special session that was set up in the framework of the Seventh International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. Recommendations were made by the committee regarding research needs in aftereffects and sense of presence, and, where possible, priorities were suggested. The research needs were structured in terms of the short, medium, and long term and, if followed, should lead toward the effective use of VE technology. The 2 most critical research issues identified were (a) standardization and use of measurement approaches for aftereffects and (b) identification and prioritization of sensorimotor discordances that drive aftereffects. Identification of aftereffects countermeasures (i.e., techniques to assist users in readily transitioning between the real and virtual worlds), reduction of system response latencies, and improvements in tracking technology were also thought to be of critical importance.

This study assessed whether stationary auditory information could affect body and head sway (as does visual and haptic information) in sighted and congenitally blind people. Two speakers, one placed adjacent to each ear, significantly stabilized center-of-foot-pressure sway in a tandem Romberg stance, while neither a single speaker in front of subjects nor a head-mounted sonar device reduced center-of-pressure sway. Center-of-pressure sway was reduced to the same level in the two-speaker condition for sighted and blind subjects. Both groups also evidenced reduced head sway in the two-speaker condition, although blind subjects' head sway was significantly larger than that of sighted subjects. The advantage of the two-speaker condition was probably attributable to the nature of distance compared with directional auditory information. The results rule out a deficit model of spatial hearing in blind people and are consistent with one version of a compensation model. Analysis of maximum cross-correlations between center-of-pressure and head sway, and associated time lags suggest that blind and sighted people may use different sensorimotor strategies to achieve stability.