Effect of inverted visual acceleration profile on vestibular heading perception

Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Publié dans:PLoS One vol. 20, no. 5 (May 2025), p. e0323348
Auteur principal: Yakouma, Miguel A
Autres auteurs: Anson, Eric, Crane, Benjamin T
Publié:
Public Library of Science
Sujets:
Accès en ligne:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3213204241
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 1932-6203 
024 7 |a 10.1371/journal.pone.0323348  |2 doi 
035 |a 3213204241 
045 2 |b d20250501  |b d20250531 
084 |a 174835  |2 nlm 
100 1 |a Yakouma, Miguel A 
245 1 |a Effect of inverted visual acceleration profile on vestibular heading perception 
260 |b Public Library of Science  |c May 2025 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a Visual motion is ambiguous in that it can either represent object motion or self-motion. Visual-vestibular integration is most advantageous during self-motion. The current experiment tests the hypothesis that the visual motion needs to have a motion profile consistent with the inertial motion. To test this, we examined the effect on heading perception when the visual stimulus was consistent with the inertial motion compared to an inverted visual stimulus, which was thus inconsistent with inertial motion. Twenty healthy human subjects (mean age 20 ± 3 years, 13 female) experienced 2s of translation, which they reported as left or right. A synchronized 2s visual heading was offset by 0°, ± 45°, ± 60°, or ±75°. In randomly interleaved trials, the visual motion was consistent with the inertial motion or inverted – it started at the peak velocity, decreased to zero mid-stimulus, and then accelerated back to the peak velocity at the end. When the velocity profile of the visual stimulus matched the velocity profile of inertial motion, the inertial stimulus was biased 10.0 ± 1.8° (mean ± SE) with a 45° visual offset, 8.9 ± 1.7° with a 60° offset, and 9.3° ± 2.5 ± with a 75° offset. When the visual stimulus was inverted so it was inconsistent with the inertial motion, the respective biases were 6.5 ± 1.5°, 5.6 ± 1.7°, and 5.9 ± 2.0°. The biases with the inverted stimulus were significantly smaller (p < 0.0001), demonstrating that the visual motion profile is considered in multisensory integration rather than simple trajectory endpoints. 
653 |a Motion effects 
653 |a Velocity 
653 |a Visual perception 
653 |a Bias 
653 |a Vestibular system 
653 |a Visual stimuli 
653 |a Experiments 
653 |a Human motion 
653 |a Perception 
653 |a Causality 
653 |a Velocity distribution 
653 |a Sensory integration 
653 |a Visual effects 
653 |a Object motion 
653 |a Social 
700 1 |a Anson, Eric 
700 1 |a Crane, Benjamin T 
773 0 |t PLoS One  |g vol. 20, no. 5 (May 2025), p. e0323348 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Health & Medical Collection 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3213204241/abstract/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3213204241/fulltext/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3213204241/fulltextPDF/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch