Detection thresholds for object motion and self-motion during vestibular and visuo-oculomotor stimulation

Kolev, Ognyan I.; Mergner, Thomas; Kimmig, H.; Becker, Wolfgang

doi:10.1016/0361-9230(96)00141-4

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Variations in threshold across frequencies indicate different filtering, i.e., that responses to different cues depend on current and past inputs being weighted differently. As with many other motion threshold studies (Benson et al 1986(Benson et al , 1989Butler et al 2010;Crane 2012a;Grabherr et al 2008;Haburcakova et al 2012;Kolev et al 1996;Roditi andCrane 2012a, 2012b;Soyka et al 2011;Valko et al 2012;Zupan and Merfeld 2008), motion stimuli were single cycles of sinusoidal acceleration with frequency f. Figure 2 shows the corresponding cosine bell velocity and sigmoidal displacement and demonstrates how the amplitudes of the three co-vary for a given frequency. While not a primary objective of this study, when compared across frequencies, this approach is sometimes used to separate the contributions of position, velocity, acceleration and higher-derivate cues.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Visual and vestibular perceptual thresholds each demonstrate better precision at specific frequencies and also exhibit optimal integration

Karmali

Lim

Merfeld

2014

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Karmali F, Lim K, Merfeld DM. Visual and vestibular perceptual thresholds each demonstrate better precision at specific frequencies and also exhibit optimal integration. J Neurophysiol 111: 2393-2403, 2014. First published December 26, 2013 doi:10.1152/jn.00332.2013.-Prior studies show that visual motion perception is more precise than vestibular motion perception, but it is unclear whether this is universal or the result of specific experimental conditions. We compared visual and vestibular motion precision over a broad range of temporal frequencies by measuring thresholds for vestibular (subject motion in the dark), visual (visual scene motion) or visual-vestibular (subject motion in the light) stimuli. Specifically, thresholds were measured for motion frequencies spanning a two-decade physiological range (0.05-5 Hz) using single-cycle sinusoidal acceleration roll tilt trajectories (i.e., distinguishing left-side down from right-side down). We found that, while visual and vestibular thresholds were broadly similar between 0.05 and 5.0 Hz, each cue is significantly more precise than the other at certain frequencies. Specifically, we found that 1) visual and vestibular thresholds were indistinguishable at 0.05 Hz and 2 Hz (i.e., similarly precise); 2) visual thresholds were lower (i.e., vision more precise) than vestibular thresholds between 0.1 Hz and 1 Hz; and 3) visual thresholds were higher (i.e., vision less precise) than vestibular thresholds above 2 Hz. This shows that vestibular perception can be more precise than visual perception at physiologically relevant frequencies. We also found that sensory integration of visual and vestibular information is consistent with static Bayesian optimal integration of visual-vestibular cues. In contrast with most prior work that degraded or altered sensory cues, we demonstrated static optimal integration using natural cues.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Visual and vestibular perceptual thresholds each demonstrate better precision at specific frequencies and also exhibit optimal integration

Karmali

Lim

Merfeld

2014

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possibility is that NEM neurons are concerned with detecting motion more than accurately relaying the magnitude of that motion. Perception of angular velocity in humans occurs at levels Ͻ4°/s (Becker et al 2000;Kolev et al 1996). In contrast, primary afferent detection thresholds are around 3.5°/s for regular afferents and 9°/s for irregular afferents (for responses averaged over 10 cycles at 0.5 Hz; Sadeghi et al 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Response Linearity of Alert Monkey Non-Eye Movement Vestibular Nucleus Neurons During Sinusoidal Yaw Rotation

Newlands

Lin²,

Wei³

2009

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Newlands SD, Lin N, Wei M. Response linearity of alert monkey non-eye movement vestibular nucleus neurons during sinusoidal yaw rotation. J Neurophysiol 102: 1388 -1397, 2009. First published June 24, 2009 doi:10.1152/jn.90914.2008. Vestibular afferents display linear responses over a range of amplitudes and frequencies, but comparable data for central vestibular neurons are lacking. To examine the effect of stimulus frequency and magnitude on the response sensitivity and linearity of non-eye movement central vestibular neurons, we recorded from the vestibular nuclei in awake rhesus macaques during sinusoidal yaw rotation at frequencies between 0.1 and 2 Hz and between 7.5 and 210°/s peak velocity. The dynamics of the neurons' responses across frequencies, while holding peak velocity constant, was consistent with previous studies. However, as the peak velocity was varied, while holding the frequency constant, neurons demonstrated lower sensitivities with increasing peak velocity, even at the lowest peak velocities tested. With increasing peak velocity, the proportion of neurons that silenced during a portion of the response increased. However, the decrease in sensitivity of these neurons with higher peak velocities of rotation was not due to increased silencing during the inhibitory portion of the cycle. Rather the neurons displayed peak firing rates that did not increase in proportion to head velocity as the peak velocity of rotation increased. These data suggest that, unlike vestibular afferents, the central vestibular neurons without eye movement sensitivity examined in this study do not follow linear systems principles even at low velocities. I N T R O D U C T I O NResponses of mammalian vestibular neurons, both peripheral and central, have been described for various stimulation paradigms. In vestibular afferent fibers, trade-off between the sensitivity of the cell's response and its linear range has been reported. Slow firing but sensitive irregular afferents effectively code acceleration only in the excitatory direction because once the firing rate of the neuron reaches inhibitory cutoff (rate of zero) the response of the cell remains zero (unchanged) with progressively more vigorous stimulation (Goldberg and Fernandez 1971b). Although the dynamics of vestibular afferent responses have been discussed extensively, less well understood is the impact of inhibitory cutoff and other nonlinearities in central vestibular neurons on the function of the vestibular system overall. Despite the known asymmetries in the primary afferent discharge, central mechanisms, especially the presence of a commissural system that provides informational redundancy in the vestibular nuclei, have been proposed to fill in the missing inhibitory information from one side of the midline with excitatory information from the other side (Abend 1978) to enable a linear output. Other authors have speculated on the possibilities of nonlinear processing in the central vestibular system ) and the role of population coding, which might provide...

show abstract

“…Comparison of perceptual thresholds for self-motion in darkness during sinusoidal roll rotation (those found in the present study) with those recorded during sinusoidal yaw rotation in an earlier study (Kolev and Nicoucar, 2014) reveals that the threshold was higher during X axis rotation at the low frequency of 0.1 Hz. The lowering of the perceptual thresholds under different VVI conditions was established during yaw vertical axis sinusoidal rotation in earlier experiments (Kolev et al, 1996;Benson et al, 1989;Doty, 1969;Clark and Stewart, 1968;Nijhoff and Roggeveen, 1956;Hallpike and Hood, 1953;Graybiel et al, 1948;Kolev and Nicoucar, 2014). It is generally accepted that two main mechanisms explain the lower threshold for self-motion perception when a subject is rotated while viewing a head-fixed target (Carriot et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The vestibular detection threshold is higher than the visual one especially at low frequencies of sinusoidal rotation, due to the high-pass characteristics of the vestibular end organ (Kolev et al, 1996;Grabherr et al, 2008). In our daily life both signals usually interact in a way that improves our self-motion perception, lowering the threshold for its detection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even so, the functional organization of our brain system is such that this conflict situation actually helps us to assess whether we are moving or not. This has been demonstrated by a number of experiments, including our earlier ones (Kolev et al, 1996;Benson et al, 1989;Doty, 1969;Clark and Stewart, 1968;Nijhoff and Roggeveen, 1956;Hallpike and Hood, 1953;Graybiel et al, 1948). These experiments involved measurement of the detection threshold for self-motion when a subject is rotated in yaw while fixing his gaze on an object aligned with his head, which moves together with him.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thresholds for self-motion perception in roll without and with visual fixation target - the visualvestibular interaction effect

Kolev¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe purpose of this study was to establish the selfmotion perception threshold, in roll, in the visualvestibular interaction (VVI) state, creating an oculogyral illusion, and to compare this threshold to the self-motion perception threshold in darkness. A further aim was to investigate the dynamics of the threshold at a low frequency range (0.1-1 Hz) of sinusoidal rotation. Seven healthy subjects were tested. A motion platform was used to generate motion. Single cycles of sinusoidal acceleration at four frequencies (0.1, 0.2, 0.5 and 1 Hz) were used as motion stimuli. To avoid otolith stimulation, subjects were rotated about a vertical axis in supine position. To evoke an oculogyral illusion subjects were instructed to fixate their gaze on a cross-shaped object aligned with their head, which rotated with them. The results show a lowering of the self-motion perception threshold in the VVI state, significant for the frequencies 0.1 and 0.2 Hz (p<0.05). In all the subjects, visual fixation on the cross evoked an oculogyral illusion. The threshold in both tested conditions was frequency dependent: it decreased with increasing frequency values. However, this effect was consistently stronger in darkness across all frequencies (p<0.05). In conclusion, the application of sinusoidal rotation during roll at low frequencies in the VVI condition evokes oculogyral illusion. This interaction lowers the self-motion perception threshold compared to that measured during rotation in darkness. This testing method could be of practical benefit in clinical application for revealing brain dysfunction involving integrative mechanisms of perception.

show abstract

Detection thresholds for object motion and self-motion during vestibular and visuo-oculomotor stimulation

Cited by 19 publications

References 23 publications

Visual and vestibular perceptual thresholds each demonstrate better precision at specific frequencies and also exhibit optimal integration

Visual and vestibular perceptual thresholds each demonstrate better precision at specific frequencies and also exhibit optimal integration

Response Linearity of Alert Monkey Non-Eye Movement Vestibular Nucleus Neurons During Sinusoidal Yaw Rotation

Thresholds for self-motion perception in roll without and with visual fixation target - the visualvestibular interaction effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About