A Bayesian Account of Visual–Vestibular Interactions in the Rod-and-Frame Task

Alberts, Bart B. G. T.; Brouwer, Anouk J. de; Selen, Luc P. J.; Medendorp, W. Pieter

doi:10.1523/eneuro.0093-16.2016

Cited by 42 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of a tilted frame causes a shift in perceived vertical in the direction of the frame’s tilt. This shift is predicted by cue integration theory, in which the frame “pulls” the perceived vertical towards the frame’s orientation (Vingerhoets et al, 2009; Alberts et al, 2016a). …”

Section: Measuring Verticality Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Gravity estimation and verticality perception

Dakin

Rosenberg

2018

Handbook of Clinical Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gravity is a defining force that governs the evolution of mechanical forms, shapes and anchors our perception of the environment, and imposes fundamental constraints on our interactions with the world. Within the animal kingdom, humans are relatively unique in having evolved a vertical, bipedal posture. Although a vertical posture confers numerous benefits, it also renders us less stable than quadrupeds, increasing susceptibility to falls. The ability to accurately and precisely estimate our orientation relative to gravity is therefore of utmost importance. Here we review sensory information and computational processes underlying gravity estimation and verticality perception. Central to gravity estimation and verticality perception is multisensory cue combination, which serves to improve the precision of perception and resolve ambiguities in sensory representations by combining information from across the visual, vestibular, and somatosensory systems. We additionally review experimental paradigms for evaluating verticality perception, and discuss how particular disorders affect the perception of upright. Together, the work reviewed here highlights the critical role of multisensory cue combination in gravity estimation, verticality perception, and creating stable gravity-centered representations of our environment.

show abstract

Section: Measuring Verticality Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Gravity estimation and verticality perception

Dakin

Rosenberg

2018

Handbook of Clinical Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conversely, if the ellipse interacts with the frame in determining a percept of head orientation, the effect on the uncertainty should increase as the frame tilts away from 08 (bottom-right panel). As for the SVV bias, previous studies (Alberts et al, 2016) have shown a sinusoidal modulation with the frame orientation (top panels). While this modulation should not be affected if the ellipse information is additive (top left panel), an interaction between the rod and the frame should cause this modulation to change: When the orientation estimate of the ellipse becomes more uncertain, the biasing effect of the frame should increase, because the subject should rely more on the frame in the SVV judgment (top right panel).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…The frame was displayed in the center of the screen, in an orientation randomly chosen out of three possible angles (À17.58, 08, 17.58; Figure 2A). The two tilted orientations are known to maximally bias the SVV (e.g., Alberts et al, 2016). After 250 ms, the ellipse was briefly flashed (one frame, i.e., 17 ms) in the center of the frame, with its major axis in an orientation determined by an adaptive psychometric approach (see later).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This computational approach relies on the concept of Bayesian inference, stating that perception depends on the statistical properties of the incoming signals together with prior assumptions based on earlier experience. Various studies have now used this framework to understand the brain's computations for spatial orientation and body-tilt perception (Alberts, De Brouwer, Selen, & Medendorp, 2016;De Winkel, Katliar, Diers, & Bülthoff, 2018;Laurens & Droulez, 2007;MacNeilage, Banks, Berger, & Bülthoff, 2007;Tarnutzer, Bockisch, Straumann, & Olasagasti, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual orientation uncertainty in the rod-and-frame illusion

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimation of the orientation of the head relative to the earth's vertical is thought to rely on the integration of vestibular and visual cues. The role of visual cues can be tested using a rod-and-frame task in which a global visual scene, typically a square frame, is displayed at different orientations together with a rod whose perceived direction is a proxy for the head-in-space estimate. While it is known that the frame biases this percept, and hence the subjective visual vertical, the possible role of the rod itself in this processing has not been examined. Current models about spatial orientation assume that the visual orientation of the rod and its uncertainty play no role in the visual-vestibular integration process, but are only involved in the transformation that yields rod orientation in space, thereby contributing additive noise to the subjective visual vertical. Here we tested the validity of this assumption in the rod-and-frame task by replacing the rod with an ellipse whose orientation uncertainty was manipulated by varying its eccentricity (i.e., making the ellipse more or less rounded). Using a psychophysical approach, subjects performed this ellipse-and-frame task for three different eccentricities of the ellipse (0.74, 0.82, 0.99) and three frame orientations (À17.58, 08, 17.58). Results show that ellipse eccentricity affects the uncertainty but not the bias of the subjective visual vertical, suggesting that the ellipse does not interact with the frame in global visual processing but contributes additive noise in computing its orientation in world coordinates.

show abstract

“…The prior over tilt, p(T), was constrained based on the natural scene statistics of surface tilt which includes more cardinal than oblique tilts, and equal left-near and right-near tilts (Adams et al, 2016;Burge et al, 2016). The prior was thus modeled as the mean of four von Mises densities centered on the cardinal tilts (Alberts et al, 2016). The concentration parameters of the densities centered at 0°and 180°were equal to reflect the symmetry of world tilts.…”

Section: Estimating a Prior Over Tiltmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimized but Not Maximized Cue Integration for 3D Visual Perception

Chang

Thompson

Doudlah

et al. 2019

eNeuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reconstructing three-dimensional (3D) scenes from two-dimensional (2D) retinal images is an ill-posed problem. Despite this, 3D perception of the world based on 2D retinal images is seemingly accurate and precise. The integration of distinct visual cues is essential for robust 3D perception in humans, but it is unclear whether this is true for non-human primates (NHPs). Here, we assessed 3D perception in macaque monkeys using a planar surface orientation discrimination task. Perception was accurate across a wide range of spatial poses (orientations and distances), but precision was highly dependent on the plane's pose. The monkeys achieved robust 3D perception by dynamically reweighting the integration of stereoscopic and perspective cues according to their pose-dependent reliabilities. Errors in performance could be explained by a prior resembling the 3D orientation statistics of natural scenes. We used neural network simulations based on 3D orientation-selective neurons recorded from the same monkeys to assess how neural computation might constrain perception. The perceptual data were consistent with a model in which the responses of two independent neuronal populations representing stereoscopic cues and perspective cues (with perspective signals from the two eyes combined using nonlinear canonical computations) were optimally integrated through linear summation. Perception of combined-cue stimuli was optimal given this architecture. However, an alternative architecture in which stereoscopic cues, left eye perspective cues, and right eye perspective cues were represented by three independent populations yielded two times greater precision than the monkeys. This result suggests that, due to canonical computations, cue integration for 3D perception is optimized but not maximized. Significance StatementOur eyes sense two-dimensional (2D) projections of the world, like a movie on a screen, but we perceive the world as three-dimensional (3D). Here, we show that non-human primates (NHPs), like humans, achieve more precise 3D vision by perceptually integrating distinct 3D cues. We also present evidence that perception is influenced by 3D natural scene statistics, and that priors over 3D orientation are subjectively encoded. Using simulations, we examine how neural computation can constrain 3D perception and estimate that perception is half as precise as theoretically possible. Our findings suggest that the concurrence of multiple canonical computations simultaneously optimizes and curbs 3D visual perception, and highlight that what constitutes optimal task performance depends on the underlying neural architecture.

show abstract

A Bayesian Account of Visual–Vestibular Interactions in the Rod-and-Frame Task

Cited by 42 publications

References 68 publications

Gravity estimation and verticality perception

Gravity estimation and verticality perception

Visual orientation uncertainty in the rod-and-frame illusion

Optimized but Not Maximized Cue Integration for 3D Visual Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About