Towards dynamic modeling of visual-vestibular conflict detection

Multisensory Calibration: A Variety of Slow and Fast Brain Processes Throughout the Lifespan

From before we are born, throughout development, adulthood, and aging, we are immersed in a multisensory world. At each of these stages, our sensory cues are constantly changing, due to body, brain, and environmental changes. While integration of information from our different sensory cues improves precision, this only improves accuracy if the underlying cues are unbiased. Thus, multisensory calibration is a vital and ongoing process. To meet this grand challenge, our brains have evolved a variety of mechanisms. First, in response to a systematic discrepancy between sensory cues (without external feedback) the cues calibrate one another (unsupervised calibration). Second, multisensory function is calibrated to external feedback (supervised calibration). These two mechanisms superimpose. While the former likely reflects a lower level mechanism, the latter likely reflects a higher level cognitive mechanism. Indeed, neural correlates of supervised multisensory calibration in monkeys were found in higher level multisensory cortical area VIP, but not in the relatively lower level multisensory area MSTd. In addition, even without a cue discrepancy (e.g., when experiencing stimuli from different sensory cues in series) the brain monitors supra-modal statistics of events in the environment and adapts perception cross-modally. This too comprises a variety of mechanisms, including confirmation bias to prior choices, and lower level cross-sensory adaptation. Further research into the neuronal underpinnings of the broad and diverse functions of multisensory calibration, with improved synthesis of theories is needed to attain a more comprehensive understanding of multisensory brain function.

Enhancement of visual cues to self-motion during a visual/vestibular conflict

Perceiving our orientation and motion requires sensory information provided by vision, our body and acceleration. Normally, these cues are redundant however in some situations they can conflict. Here, we created a visual-vestibular conflict by simulating a body-upright virtual world while participants were either standing (no conflict), supine or prone (conflict) and assessed the perception of "forward" distance travelled induced by visual motion. Some participants felt they were standing upright even when lying, indicating a visual reorientation illusion (VRI). We previously showed that when experiencing a VRI, visually induced self-motion is enhanced. Here, we determined if there was a relationship between VRI vulnerability and sensory weighting. Confirming our previous findings, the VRI-vulnerable group showed enhanced self-motion perception. We then assessed the relative weightings of visual and non-visual cues in VRI-vulnerable and VRI-resistant individuals using the Oriented Character Recognition Test. Surprisingly, VRI-vulnerable individuals weighted visual cues less and gravity cues more compared to VRI-resistant individuals. These findings are in line with robust integration where, when the difference between two cues is large, the discrepant cue (here gravity) is ignored. Ignoring the gravity cue then leads to relatively more emphasis being placed on visual information and thus a higher gain.

When gravity is not where it should be: How perceived orientation affects visual self-motion processing

Human perception is based on expectations. We expect visual upright and gravity upright, sensed through vision, vestibular and other sensory systems, to agree. Equally, we expect that visual and vestibular information about self-motion will correspond. What happens when these assumptions are violated? Tilting a person from upright so that gravity is not where it should be impacts both visually induced self-motion (vection) and the perception of upright. How might the two be connected? Using virtual reality, we varied the strength of visual orientation cues, and hence the probability of participants experiencing a visual reorientation illusion (VRI) in which visual cues to orientation dominate gravity, using an oriented corridor and a starfield while also varying head-on-trunk orientation and body posture. The effectiveness of the optic flow in simulating self-motion was assessed by how much visual motion was required to evoke the perception that the participant had reached the position of a previously presented target. VRI was assessed by questionnaire When participants reported higher levels of VRI they also required less visual motion to evoke the sense of traveling through a given distance, regardless of head or body posture, or the type of visual environment. We conclude that experiencing a VRI, in which visual-vestibular conflict is resolved and the direction of upright is reinterpreted, affects the effectiveness of optic flow at simulating motion through the environment. Therefore, any apparent effect of head or body posture or type of environment are largely indirect effects related instead, to the level of VRI experienced by the observer. We discuss potential mechanisms for this such as reinterpreting gravity information or altering the weighting of orientation cues.