To pass or not to pass: More a question of body orientation than visual cues

This study investigated the influence of pitch body tilt on judging the possibility of passing under high obstacles in the presence of an illusory horizontal self-motion. Seated subjects tilted at various body orientations were asked to estimate the possibility of passing under a projected bar (i.e., a parking barrier), while imagining a forward whole-body displacement normal to gravity. This task was performed under two visual conditions, providing either no visual surroundings or a translational horizontal optic flow that stopped just before the barrier appeared. The results showed a main overestimation of the possibility of passing under the bar in both cases and most importantly revealed a strong influence of body orientation despite the visual specification of horizontal self-motion by optic flow (i.e., both visual conditions yielded a comparable body tilt effect). Specifically, the subjective passability was proportionally deviated towards the body tilt by 46% of its magnitude when facing a horizontal optic flow and 43% without visual surroundings. This suggests that the egocentric attraction exerted by body tilt when referring the subjective passability to horizontal self-motion still persists even when anchoring horizontally related visual cues are displayed. These findings are discussed in terms of interaction between spatial references. The link between the reliability of available sensory inputs and the weight attributed to each reference is also addressed.     

Self-motion perception and vestibulo-ocular reflex during whole body yaw rotation in standing subjects: the role of head position and neck proprioception

Self-motion perception and vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) were studied during whole body yaw rotation in the dark at different static head positions. Rotations consisted of four cycles of symmetric sinusoidal and asymmetric oscillations. Self-motion perception was evaluated by measuring the ability of subjects to manually track a static remembered target. VOR was recorded separately and the slow phase eye position (SPEP) was computed. Three different head static yaw deviations (active and passive) relative to the trunk (0°, 45° to right and 45° to left) were examined. Active head deviations had a significant effect during asymmetric oscillation: the movement perception was enhanced when the head was kept turned toward the side of body rotation and decreased in the opposite direction. Conversely, passive head deviations had no effect on movement perception. Further, vibration (100 Hz) of the neck muscles splenius capitis and sternocleidomastoideus remarkably influenced perceived rotation during asymmetric oscillation. On the other hand, SPEP of VOR was modulated by active head deviation, but was not influenced by neck muscle vibration. Through its effects on motion perception and reflex gain, head position improved gaze stability and enhanced self-motion perception in the direction of the head deviation.     

Action-dependent perceptual invariants: from ecological to sensorimotor approaches

Ecological and sensorimotor theories of perception build on the notion of action-dependent invariants as the basic structures underlying perceptual capacities. In this paper we contrast the assumptions these theories make on the nature of perceptual information modulated by action. By focusing on the question, how movement specifies perceptual information, we show that ecological and sensorimotor theories endorse substantially different views about the role of action in perception. In particular we argue that ecological invariants are characterized with reference to transformations produced in the sensory array by movement: such invariants are transformation-specific but do not imply motor-specificity. In contrast, sensorimotor theories assume that perceptual invariants are intrinsically tied to specific movements. We show that this difference leads to different empirical predictions and we submit that the distinction between motor equivalence and motor-specificity needs further clarification in order to provide a more constrained account of action/perception relations.