Visual orientation during and after lateral head, body, and trunk tilt

Wade, Nicholas

doi:10.3758/bf03212730

Cited by 53 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, when S is tilted laterally to the recumbent position, there is relatively little change in the apparent orientation of a figure in a dark field (Wade, 1968).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Basis of the horizontal-vertical illusion.

Avery

Day²

1969

Journal of Experimental Psychology

132

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were designed to determine the basis of the horizontalvertical (HV) illusion using an L figure. Experiment I showed that there were no differences in the size of the effect in darkness, semidarkness, and in the light, a result contrary to the visual field explanation. In Exp. II the figure was viewed in the dark with 5s upright and recumbent, and in Exp. Ill the L figure was oriented between 0° (vertical) and 90° (horizontal) in 15° steps. Data from Exp. II and III showed that apparent length is a function of the retinal meridians with which the lines correspond irrespective of their physical or apparent orientation to an external reference.

show abstract

“…First, when S is tilted laterally to the recumbent position, there is relatively little change in the apparent orientation of a figure in a dark field (Wade, 1968).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Basis of the horizontal-vertical illusion.

Avery

Day²

1969

Journal of Experimental Psychology

132

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when the tilt is restricted to the head, results vary from one experiment to another. They are E effects (Day & Wade, 1969;Wade, 1968Wade, , 1969Witkin & Asch, 1948a), A effects (Dichgans, Diener, & Brandt, 1974;Parker, Poston, & Gulledge, 1983), or occasionally no general effect (DiLorenzo & Rock, 1982;Merker & Held, 1981).…”

Section: Aubert and Miiller Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of head-centric spatial reference with a static and kinetic visual disturbance

Guerraz

Poquin

Ohlmann

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A static or kinetic visual disturbance affects subjects' ability to estimate the direction of the gravitational vertical. This kind of error is increased by a head roll inclination. In two experiments, we combined head orientation with a static (Experiment 1: tilted frame) versus kinetic (Experiment 2: rotating disk) visual disturbance. The results showed that with a static visual disturbance, the increase of errors in the inclined head condition was mainly the consequence of a postural head effect like an Aubert effect. On the contrary, with a kinetic visual disturbance, it appears that the disk effect increases with head inclination. However, individual errors observed with the head inclined in front of a stationary disk were systematically correlated with the errors triggered by the same head inclination in front of a rotating disk. These observations confirm that the head axis spatial reference plays an important role in orientation perception, whatever the head position and the kind of visual display.The subjective visual (SV) oftilted observers with tilted head in front of a static-or kinetic visual disturbance has been shown to deviate from the gravitational vertical more than that ofobservers with head upright. This increase is generally believed to be due to the increase ofthe weighting of the visual influence, despite the fact that head inclination should produce its own effects. The main aim of the paper was to break down and mutually compare the relative effects of head tilt and visual disturbance on the sv. Aubert and Miiller EffectsIn darkness, tilts of the head and body are well known to induce constant errors in SV that are displaced either in the direction of postural inclination (the Aubert, or A effect) or in the opposite direction (the Miiller, or E effect). Many authors (for a review, see Howard, 1986) have suggested that the E effect is characteristic of small degrees of body inclination (up to 60°), whereas the A effect is observed for greater angles (>60°) oftilt. Consequently, tilting the head alone would be expected to proThis work was supported by grants from the University Pierre Mendes France ofGrenoble (CNRS) and by the Ministere de la Defense (DRET, Contract 92/150). We are grateful to Elwyn Leek for his help with the translation and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Correspondence should be addressed to T. Ohlmann,

show abstract

“…Much evidence (e.g., Ebenholtz, 1977;Howard & Templeton, 1966;Schone & Lechner-Steinleitner, 1978;Wade, 1968Wade, , 1970Wade & Day, 1968;Yardley, 1990) has indicated that when we tilt our head (or body) 45°or more to one side in the frontal plane, a visual line that is parallel to gravity is perceived as tilting to the opposite direction of the head tilt (the A effect); whereas, with a head tilt of less than 45°, the visual line is perceived as tilting in the same direction as the head tilt (the E effect). When the head is slanted back-ward in the median plane, the gaze direction judged as straight ahead is higher than that obtained before backward slanting (Shebilske & Fogelgren, 1977;Shebilske & Karmiohl, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Apparent body tilt and postural aftereffect

Higashiyama

Koga

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apparent orientation of the body tilted laterally in the frontal plane was studied with the methods of absolute judgments in four experiments. In Experiment 1, 17 subjects, who maintained the normal adaptation of body to gravity,estimated their body tilts under the condition of seeing the gravitational vertical and under the condition of eliminating it. The results showed that (1) there was not a significant difference between the two conditions and (2) the small tilts of less than 45°were exactly estimated, whereas the large tilts of 45°-108°were overestimated. In Experiment 2, 10subjects estimated their body tilts under three velocities of a rotating chair on which each subject was placed. Although both body tilt and chair velocity were found to influence tilt estimation, the effect of body tilt was overwhelmingly greater than that of chair velocity. In Experiment 3, 11 subjects adapted their bodies to a 72°left tilt for 10 min and then estimated various body tilts around the adapting tilt. The estimations obtained under the 72°adaptation were lower than those obtained under the 0°adaptation, and this reduction was greater for the test tilt that was farther away from the adapting tilt. In Experiment 4, 11 subjects adjusted their own body tilts to designated angles. The results confirmed the outcomes of absolute estimation in Experiments 1-3. From these findings and past literature, the judgments of body tilt were considered to be subserved by a single sensory process that was based on the cutaneous and muscular proprioceptors, rather than the vestibular and joint proprioceptors. 331We investigated apparent orientation of the body by tilting it laterally in the frontal plane.' The first concern was to establish psychophysical scale for body tilt under normal adaptation of the body to gravity. The second concern was to explore the processes and proprioceptors that make the perception ofbody tilt possible. For the latter concern, we made use of postural aftereffects or postural persistence: the sense of position of a limb, the head, or the eyes that may be temporarily affected when an asymmetrical posture is maintained for some time (F. 1. Clark & Horch, 1986;Howard, 1982). In this study, after being placed at a certain fixed tilt for some time, the subjects judged their various body tilts around the fixed tilt. On the basis of extent and magnitude of postural aftereffects, we assessed how many processes (single or double) exert in the perception of body tilt. Moreover, we considered how the processes are related to the nonvisual proprioceptors, such as the cutaneous, vestibular, joint, and muscular proprioceptors.?One conventional method of measuring apparent body tilt is to have the subject indicate his or her apparent bodyThe authors are grateful to Y.Ohta, who helped collect the data of Experiments 2 and 3, and to K. Shimono, who critically read the earlier manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to K. Koga, Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Nagoya University, Furo-cho Nagoya 464-0 I, Japan...

show abstract

Visual orientation during and after lateral head, body, and trunk tilt

Abstract: Visual judgments of orientation were investigated during (effect) and after (aftereffect)

Cited by 53 publications

References 29 publications

Basis of the horizontal-vertical illusion.

Basis of the horizontal-vertical illusion.

The role of head-centric spatial reference with a static and kinetic visual disturbance

Apparent body tilt and postural aftereffect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About