Assessment of visual field dependence: Comparison between the mechanical 3D rod-and-frame test developed by Oltman in 1968 with a 2D computer-based version

Abstract

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.

Re-assessing the role of culture on the visual orientation perception of the rod and frame test

“…The average bias on the RFT in the non-tilted condition was less than 1°, typical of conditions without a frame or with a non-tilted frame in healthy participants [ 19 – 21 ]. The average error found for the tilted frame conditions, 3.65°, was similar in magnitude to what others have found in 3D virtual and real RFTs, ranging from 3° to 5° in young adults (e.g., [ 10 , 13 , 22 ]). Further, we replicated the well-known finding in the literature that women were slightly (but with statistical significance) more influenced than men by the tilted frame in judging the rod’s orientation.…”

The effect of virtual visual scene inclination transitions on gait modulation in healthy young vs older adults - a virtual reality study

“…Visual field dependence is considered as the level of reliance on visual cues in comparison to body-based cues 15,16 . A popular way to evaluate it is using the rod and frame test 10,[17][18][19] . Visual field dependency varies across healthy people 20,21 , and was found to be higher in individuals with pathologic or physiologic (e.g., aging) balance related conditions [22][23][24][25][26] .…”

Misperception of Visual Verticality Measured with a Virtual Reality Device in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…The most used methods to analyze the perception of visual verticality (VV) in clinical practice and research is the Subjective Visual Vertical (SVV) test [14], which provides information on the contribution of the vestibular system to the perception of VV. Likewise, the Rod and Frame Test (RFT) [15] assesses the contribution of the visual system to the perception of VV at the same time that it classifies the subjects as visually dependent or independent. Recent studies have reported that FMS patients appear to have poor vestibular and visual scores in balances tests and showed that static balance and gait during unsteadiness conditions with open or closed eyes are significantly worse in FMS patients and older adults than in healthy subjects [16].…”