A coordinate system for visual motion perception

Testing the limits of optimal integration of visual and proprioceptive information of path trajectory

Many studies provide evidence that information from different modalities is integrated following the maximum likelihood estimation model (MLE). For instance, we recently found that visual and proprioceptive path trajectories are optimally combined (Reuschel et al. in Exp Brain Res 201:853-862, 2010). However, other studies have failed to reveal optimal integration of such dynamic information. In the present study, we aim to generalize our previous findings to different parts of the workspace (central, ipsilateral, or contralateral) and to different types of judgments (relative vs. absolute). Participants made relative judgments by judging whether an angular path was acute or obtuse, or they made absolute judgments by judging whether a one-segmented straight path was directed to left or right. Trajectories were presented in the visual, proprioceptive, or combined visual-proprioceptive modality. We measured the bias and the variance of these estimates and predicted both parameters using the MLE. In accordance with the MLE model, participants linearly combined and weighted the unimodal angular path information by their reliabilities irrespective of the side of workspace. However, the precision of bimodal estimates was not greater than that for unimodal estimates, which is inconsistent with the MLE. For the absolute judgment task, participants' estimates were highly accurate and did not differ across modalities. Thus, we were unable to test whether the bimodal percept resulted as a weighted average of the visual and proprioceptive input. Additionally, participants were not more precise in the bimodal compared with the unimodal conditions, which is inconsistent with the MLE. Current findings suggest that optimal integration of visual and proprioceptive information of path trajectory only applies in some conditions.

Human updating of visual motion direction during head rotations

Previous studies have demonstrated that human subjects update the location of visual targets for saccades after head and body movements and in the absence of visual feedback. This phenomenon is known as spatial updating. Here we investigated whether a similar mechanism exists for the perception of motion direction. We recorded eye positions in three dimensions and behavioral responses in seven subjects during a motion task in two different conditions: when the subject's head remained stationary and when subjects rotated their heads around an anteroposterior axis (head tilt). We demonstrated that after head-tilt subjects updated the direction of saccades made in the perceived stimulus direction (direction of motion updating), the amount of updating varied across subjects and stimulus directions, the amount of motion direction updating was highly correlated with the amount of spatial updating during a memory-guided saccade task, subjects updated the stimulus direction during a two-alternative forced-choice direction discrimination task in the absence of saccadic eye movements (perceptual updating), perceptual updating was more accurate than motion direction updating involving saccades, and subjects updated motion direction similarly during active and passive head rotation. These results demonstrate the existence of an updating mechanism for the perception of motion direction in the human brain that operates during active and passive head rotations and that resembles the one of spatial updating. Such a mechanism operates during different tasks involving different motor and perceptual skills (saccade and motion direction discrimination) with different degrees of accuracy.

Visual cortex activation in kinesthetic guidance of reaching

The purpose of this research was to determine the cortical circuit involved in encoding and controlling kinesthetically guided reaching movements. We used (15)O-butanol positron emission tomography in ten blindfolded able-bodied volunteers in a factorial experiment in which arm (left/right) used to encode target location and to reach back to the remembered location and hemispace of target location (left/right side of midsagittal plane) varied systematically. During encoding of a target the experimenter guided the hand to touch the index fingertip to an external target and then returned the hand to the start location. After a short delay the subject voluntarily moved the same hand back to the remembered target location. SPM99 analysis of the PET data contrasting left versus right hand reaching showed increased (P < 0.05, corrected) neural activity in the sensorimotor cortex, premotor cortex and posterior parietal lobule (PPL) contralateral to the moving hand. Additional neural activation was observed in prefrontal cortex and visual association areas of occipital and parietal lobes contralateral and ipsilateral to the reaching hand. There was no statistically significant effect of target location in left versus right hemispace nor was there an interaction of hand and hemispace effects. Structural equation modeling showed that parietal lobe visual association areas contributed to kinesthetic processing by both hands but occipital lobe visual areas contributed only during dominant hand kinesthetic processing. This visual processing may also involve visualization of kinesthetically guided target location and use of the same network employed to guide reaches to visual targets when reaching to kinesthetic targets. The present work clearly demonstrates a network for kinesthetic processing that includes higher visual processing areas in the PPL for both upper limbs and processing in occipital lobe visual areas for the dominant limb.

The visual perception coordinate system uses axes defined by the earth, trunk, and vision

Eight young adults adjusted a line located on one side of a computer display parallel to internally specified Earth-fixed vertical (display in frontal plane), to the horizontal trunk-fixed anterior-posterior axis (display in horizontal plane), and to an oblique line (display in horizontal and vertical planes). All tasks were completed in a dark room with the head and trunk in both a standard erect posture and varied postures. Errors were lowest when setting the line to internally specified vertical in the frontal plane and to an oblique line in the horizontal plane when head and trunk orientations were varied. Constant errors for setting one line parallel to a second line were in opposite directions when the second line was located on the left versus right side of the display, but did not differ in direction when setting the line parallel to internally specified axes. Also, the oblique effect was preserved when the head and trunk were tilted to various orientations, suggesting that it results from integration of an internally specified gravitational reference with visual input. We conclude that the visual perceptual coordinate system uses internally specified vertical and, when available, a visually specified horizontal reference axis to define object orientation.

Kinesthetic perception of visually specified axes

The purpose of this research was to determine whether human subjects could align the forearm more accurately to the orientation of an external object than to earth-fixed vertical and trunk-fixed anterior-posterior (a-p) axes. Ten young adults aligned the unseen forearm to earth-fixed vertical and trunk-fixed a-p axes, and to a visually presented rod (external visual axis) held by an experimenter in various oblique vertical and horizontal orientations. The head and trunk orientations were varied by left/right lateral flexion when aligning the forearm to vertical plane axes and by rotation about the vertical axis when aligning the forearm to horizontal plane axes. Perceptual errors for aligning the forearm to vertical plane axes were much lower when aligning the forearm to earth-fixed vertical than to an external visual axis positioned in a vertical plane. Furthermore, the perceptual errors for aligning the forearm to the visually presented rod were correlated with rod orientation while errors for aligning the forearm to vertical while viewing the rod were unaffected by rod orientations. Clearly, human subjects cannot use an oblique external visually presented axis to provide a frame of reference for accurate perception of forearm orientation in vertical planes. Perceptual errors were similar for aligning the forearm to the horizontal trunk-fixed a-p axis and external visual axis when head and trunk orientation were varied. These perceptual errors were not correlated with rod orientation in the horizontal plane, giving no evidence of bias toward the trunk or external visual axis in horizontal plane perception of forearm orientation. Thus, humans can use either the trunk-fixed a-p axis or the visually specified orientation of an external object as a frame of reference for the kinesthetic system to specify forearm orientation in the horizontal plane.