Hysteresis of haptic vertical and straight ahead in healthy human subjects

BMC Neuroscience

Dominik Straumann¹  Christopher J Bockisch²  Jeanine R Schuler¹  Alexander A Tarnutzer¹ 

[1]Department of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 26, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland

[2]Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

关键词: Kinesthetics;    Somatosensory;    Pseudo-neglect;    Pointing;    Perception;   

Others  :  1140935
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2202-13-114

 received in 2012-07-10, accepted in 2012-09-19,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The subjective haptic vertical (SHV) task requires subjects to adjust the roll orientation of an object, mostly in the roll plane, in such a way that it is parallel to perceived direction of gravity. Previously we found a tendency for clockwise rod rotations to deviate counter-clockwise and vice versa, indicating hysteresis. However, the contributing factors remained unclear. To clarify this we characterized the SHV in terms of handedness, hand used, direction of hand rotation, type of grasping (wrap vs. precision grip) and gender, and compared findings with perceived straight-ahead (PSA). Healthy subjects repetitively performed adjustments along SHV (n = 21) and PSA (n = 10) in complete darkness.

Results

For both SHV and PSA significant effects of the hand used and the direction of rod/plate rotation were found. The latter effect was similar for SHV and PSA, leading to significantly larger counter-clockwise shifts (relative to true earth-vertical and objective straight-ahead) for clockwise rotations compared to counter-clockwise rotations irrespective of the handedness and the type of grip. The effect of hand used, however, was opposite in the two tasks: while the SHV showed a counter-clockwise bias when the right hand was used and no bias for the left hand, in the PSA a counter-clockwise bias was obtained for the left hand without a bias for the right hand. No effects of grip and handedness (studied for SHV only) on accuracy were observed, however, SHV precision was significantly (p < 0.005) better in right-handed subjects compared to left-handed subjects and in male subjects.

Conclusions

Unimanual haptic tasks require control for the hand used and the type of grip as these factors significantly affect task performance. Furthermore, aligning objects with the SHV and PSA resulted in systematic direction-dependent deviations that could not be attributed to handedness, the hand used, or the type of grip. These deviations are consistent with hysteresis and are likely not related to gravitational pull, as they were observed in both planes tested, i.e. parallel and perpendicular to gravity. Short-term adaptation that shifts attention towards previous adjustment positions may provide an explanation for such biases of spatial orientation in both the horizontal and frontal plane.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Tarnutzer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Barra J, Marquer A, Joassin R, Reymond C, Metge L, Chauvineau V, Perennou D: Humans use internal models to construct and update a sense of verticality. Brain 2010, 133(Pt 12):3552-3563.
• [2]Bronstein AM, Perennou DA, Guerraz M, Playford D, Rudge P: Dissociation of visual and haptic vertical in two patients with vestibular nuclear lesions. Neurology 2003, 61(9):1260-1262.
• [3]Perennou DA, Mazibrada G, Chauvineau V, Greenwood R, Rothwell J, Gresty MA, Bronstein AM: Lateropulsion, pushing and verticality perception in hemisphere stroke: a causal relationship? Brain 2008, 131(Pt 9):2401-2413.
• [4]Brandt T, Dieterich M, Danek A: Vestibular cortex lesions affect the perception of verticality. Ann Neurol 1994, 35(4):403-412.
• [5]Flanagan JR, Bowman MC, Johansson RS: Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2006, 16(6):650-659.
• [6]Gentaz E, Baud-Bovy G, Luyat M: The haptic perception of spatial orientations. Exp Brain Res 2008, 187(3):331-348.
• [7]Medendorp WP, Van Asselt S, Gielen CC: Pointing to remembered visual targets after active one-step self-displacements within reaching space. Exp Brain Res 1999, 125(1):50-60.
• [8]Prablanc C, Pelisson D, Goodale MA: Visual control of reaching movements without vision of the limb. I. Role of retinal feedback of target position in guiding the hand. Exp Brain Res 1986, 62(2):293-302.
• [9]Wade SW, Curthoys IS: The effect of ocular torsional position on perception of the roll-tilt of visual stimuli. Vision Res 1997, 37(8):1071-1078.
• [10]Lejeune L, Thouvarecq R, Anderson DI, Jouen F: Kinesthetic estimation of the main orientations from the upright and supine positions. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2004, 117(1):13-28.
• [11]Bauermeister M, Werner H, Wapner S: The effect of body tilt on tactual-kinesthetic perception of verticality. Am J Psychol 1964, 77:451-456.
• [12]Bowers D, Heilman KM: Pseudoneglect: effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia 1980, 18(4–5):491-498.
• [13]Brodie EE, Dunn EM: Visual line bisection in sinistrals and dextrals as a function of hemispace, hand, and scan direction. Brain Cogn 2005, 58(2):149-156.
• [14]Philip J, Hatwell Y: Effects of cueing and of the direction of scanning on the tactile line bisection of normal adults. CPC Current Psychology Cognition 1998, 17:31-51.
• [15]Jewell G, McCourt ME: Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38(1):93-110.
• [16]Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL: Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 2002, 88(5):2408-2421.
• [17]Sainburg RL, Wang J: Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: independence of direction and final position information. Exp Brain Res 2002, 145(4):437-447.
• [18]Duff SV, Sainburg RL: Lateralization of motor adaptation reveals independence in control of trajectory and steady-state position. Exp Brain Res 2007, 179(4):551-561.
• [19]Wang J, Sainburg RL: The dominant and nondominant arms are specialized for stabilizing different features of task performance. Exp Brain Res 2007, 178(4):565-570.
• [20]Honda H: Functional between-hand differences and outflow eye position information. Q J Exp Psychol A 1984, 36(1):75-88.
• [21]Honda H: Rightward superiority of eye movements in a bimanual aiming task. Q J Exp Psychol A 1982, 34(Pt 4):499-513.
• [22]Roy EA, Elliott D: Manual asymmetries in aimed movements. Q J Exp Psychol 1989, 41A:501-516.
• [23]Roy EA, MacKenzie C: Handedness effects in kinesthetic spatial location judgements. Cortex 1978, 14(2):250-258.
• [24]Goble DJ, Brown SH: The biological and behavioral basis of upper limb asymmetries in sensorimotor performance. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2008, 32(3):598-610.
• [25]Goble DJ, Brown SH: Task-dependent asymmetries in the utilization of proprioceptive feedback for goal-directed movement. Exp Brain Res 2007, 180(4):693-704.
• [26]Colley A: Spatial location judgements by right and left-handers. Cortex 1984, 20(1):47-53.
• [27]Schuler JR, Bockisch CJ, Straumann D, Tarnutzer AA: Precision and accuracy of the subjective haptic vertical in the roll plane. BMC Neurosci 2010, 11:83. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Chapman LJ, Chapman JP: The measurement of handedness. Brain Cogn 1987, 6(2):175-183.
• [29]Aickin M, Gensler H: Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: the Bonferroni vs Holm methods. Am J Public Health 1996, 86(5):726-728.
• [30]Holm S: A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statis 1979, 6:65-70.
• [31]Guerraz M, Luyat M, Poquin D, Ohlmann T: The Role of Neck Afferents in Subjective Orientation in the Visual and Tactile Sensory Modalities. Acta Otolaryngol 2000, 120:735-738.
• [32]Kerkhoff G: Multimodal spatial orientation deficits in left-sided visual neglect. Neuropsychologia 1999, 37:1387-1405.
• [33]Mars F, Popov K, Vercher JL: Supramodal effects of galvanic vestibular stimulation on the subjective vertical. Neuroreport 2001, 12(13):2991-2994.
• [34]Dragoi V, Sharma J, Sur M: Adaptation-induced plasticity of orientation tuning in adult visual cortex. Neuron 2000, 28(1):287-298.
• [35]Schummers J, Sharma J, Sur M: Bottom-up and top-down dynamics in visual cortex. Prog Brain Res 2005, 149:65-81.
• [36]Raphan T, Matsuo V, Cohen B: Velocity storage in the vestibulo-ocular reflex arc (VOR). Exp Brain Res 1979, 35(2):229-248.
• [37]Krakauer JW, Mazzoni P: Human sensorimotor learning: adaptation, skill, and beyond. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2011, 21(4):636-644.
• [38]Chokron S, Colliot P, Atzeni T, Bartolomeo P, Ohlmann T: Active versus passive proprioceptive straight-ahead pointing in normal subjects. Brain Cogn 2004, 55(2):290-294.
• [39]Colliot P, Chokron S, Ohlmann T: Is there an effect of handedness on the position of the egocentric reference? Brain Cogn 2002, 48(2–3):318-323.
• [40]Scarisbrick DJ, Tweedy JR, Kuslansky G: Hand preference and performance effects in line bisection. Neuropsychologia 1987, 25:695-699.
• [41]McGlone J, Davidson W: The relation between cerebral speech laterality and spatial ability with special reference to sex and hand preference. Neuropsychologia 1973, 11(1):105-113.
• [42]Vogel JJ, Bowers CA, Vogel DS: Cerebral lateralization of spatial abilities: a meta-analysis. Brain Cogn 2003, 52(2):197-204.
• [43]Luh KE: Line bisection and perceptual asymmetries in normal individuals: what you see is not what you get. Neuropsychology 1995, 9:435-448.
• [44]Van Beuzekom AD, Van Gisbergen JA: Properties of the internal representation of gravity inferred from spatial-direction and body-tilt estimates. J Neurophysiol 2000, 84(1):11-27.
• [45]De Vrijer M, Medendorp WP, Van Gisbergen JA: Shared computational mechanism for tilt compensation accounts for biased verticality percepts in motion and pattern vision. J Neurophysiol 2008, 99(2):915-930.
• [46]Kaptein RG, Van Gisbergen JA: Nature of the transition between two modes of external space perception in tilted subjects. J Neurophysiol 2005, 93(6):3356-3369.
• [47]Tarnutzer AA, Bockisch C, Straumann D, Olasagasti I: Gravity dependence of subjective visual vertical variability. J Neurophysiol 2009, 102(3):1657-1671.
• [48]Tarnutzer AA, Bockisch CJ, Straumann D: Head roll dependent variability of subjective visual vertical and ocular counterroll. Exp Brain Res 2009, 195(4):621-626.
• [49]Bortolami SB, Pierobon A, DiZio P, Lackner JR: Localization of the subjective vertical during roll, pitch, and recumbent yaw body tilt. Exp Brain Res 2006, 173(3):364-373.
• [50]Heilman KM, Bowers D, Valenstein E, Watson RT: Hemispace and hemispatial neglect. In Neurophysiological and Neuropsychological Aspects of Spatial Neglect. Edited by Jeannerod M. Elsevier, Amsterdam; 1987:115-150.
• [51]Kinsbourne M: The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1970, 33:193-201.
• [52]Kinsbourne M: The control of attention by interaction between the cerebral hemispheres. In Attention and performance. Volume IV. Edited by Kornblum S. Academic, New York; 1973:239-258.
• [53]Reuter-Lorenz PA, Kinsbourne M, Moscovitch M: Hemispheric control of spatial attention. Brain Cogn 1990, 12(2):240-266.
• [54]Bradshaw JL, Nettleton NC, Pierson JM, Wilson LE, Nathan G: Coordinates of extracorporeal space. In Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect. Edited by Jeannerod M. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam; 1987:41-67.
• [55]Bultitude JH, Aimola Davies AM: Putting attention on the line: investigating the activation-orientation hypothesis of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia 2006, 44(10):1849-1858.