520 likes | 704 Vues
UNVEILING THE HIDDEN SENSE. Farewell lecture May 30, 2008. VESTIBULAR CONTRIBUTION TO SPATIAL AWARENESS.
E N D
UNVEILING THE HIDDEN SENSE Farewell lecture May 30, 2008
VESTIBULAR CONTRIBUTION TO SPATIAL AWARENESS detection of self motion sensing body orientation in space visual perception in earth-centric coordinates
SCOPE • Vestibular sensors • Spatial orientation in dynamic conditions • Spatial vision in tilted observers • Bayesian model
VESTIBULAR SENSORS canals otoliths
CANALS DETECT ROTATION high-pass filter insensitive to constant velocity rotation nerve fibers code head velocity
CONSTANT ROTATION IN DARKNESS • rotation percept decays • after stop, percept of rotation in opposite direction • reflects cupular mechanics
OTOLITHS sensitive to tilt and translation
OTOLITH SIGNAL IS AMBIGUOUS hair cellscannot distinguish tilt and translation
AMBIGUITY PROBLEM inverse problem • otolith signal may have various causes: • translation (a) • force of gravity due to tilt (g) • combination of a and g • How can the brain resolve this ambiguity ?
CANAL- OTOLITH INTERACTION MODEL • canals detect rotation during tilt changes • their signal helps to decompose otolith signal Angelaki et al. (1999)
CANAL–OTOLITH INTERACTION MODEL tilt angle linear acceleration angular velocity • basic principle: • tilt stimulates otoliths AND canals • - translation stimulates only otoliths Merfeld and Zupan (2002) J. Neurophysiology
TESTING THE MODEL percepts during rotation about a tilted axis (OVAR) Vingerhoets et al. (2006) J. Neurophysiol. Vingerhoets et al. (2007) J. Neurophysiol.
THE ACTUAL MOTION - rotation about tilted axis - in darkness - constant velocity
MODEL PREDICTIONS rotation signal decays gradually wrong interpretation otolith signal: illusory translation percept
SCHEMATIC SUMMARY OF RESULTS Actual motion: rotation percept Percept: translation percept confirms prediction
TRANSLATION AND ROTATION PERCEPT DATA rotation percept translation percept
SENSING THE DIRECTION OF GRAVITY experiments in darkness • Two different tasks: • Set line to vertical (SVV) • Estimate your body tilt (SBT) Van Beuzekom & Van Gisbergen (2000) J. Neurophysiol. Van Beuzekom et al. (2001) Vision Res. Kaptein & Van Gisbergen (2004, 2005) J. Neurophysiol. De Vrijer et al. (2008) J. Neurophysiol.
ACCURACY vs PRECISION Accuracy: How close is the response to the true value? Precision: How reproducible is the response? darts analogy:
ACCURACY AND PRECISION IN LINE TASK (SVV) accuracy precision De Vrijer et al. (2008) J. Neurophysiol. De Vrijer et al. (2008) in progress
ACCURACY IN LINE TASK due to underestimation of body tilt?
NO UNDERESTIMATION OF BODY TILT SVV SBT • Subjects know quite well how they are tilted (SBT) • Yet, their line settings undercompensate for tilt (SVV) Van Beuzekom et al. (2001) Vision Res. Kaptein and Van Gisbergen (2004) J. Neurophysiol.
PRECISION IN LINE TASK is scatter in SVV simply reflection of noise in body tilt signal? De Vrijer et al. (2008) J. Neurophysiol. De Vrijer et al. (2008) in progress
SVV LESS NOISY THAN SBT psychometric experiments at 0o and 90o tilt: De Vrijer et al. in progress
SUMMARY SBT AND SVV DATA estimate body tilt (SBT) adjust line to vertical (SVV) • Two paradoxical findings: • subject knows tilt angle, yet makes biased line settings • more certain about line setting than about body tilt
SBT DATA SHOW: • An unbiased head tilt signal is available • Noise increases with tilt angle
SIGNALS REQUIRED FOR SPATIAL VISION retinal signal head-tilt signal to compute line in space (Ls), brain must combine info about line orientation on retina (LR) and head tilt (HS)
SIMPLY USING RAW TILT SIGNAL … would not explain SVV bias !! spatial vision would be accurate, but noisy raw tilt signal
IDEAL OBSERVER STRATEGY • Use sensory data: noisy tilt signal suggests range of possible tilt angles (likelihood) • Use prior knowledge: we know that large tilt angles are very uncommon (prior) • Most likely tilt angle (posterior) is product of likelihood and prior Eggert (1998) PhD Thesis, Munich MacNeilage et al. (2007) Exp. Brain Res. De Vrijer et al. (2008) J. Neurophysiol.
IDEAL OBSERVER STRATEGY • Tilt prior has 2 effects on SVV: • Less noise • Bias at large tilt
WHY WOULD THIS MAKE SENSE? • Less noise in spatial vision • Downside: bias at large tilts • Average performance improves (large tilts are rare)
no bias no bias De Vrijer et al. (2008) J. Neurophysiology
small bias small bias
MODEL PARAMETERS • 1) head tilt noise level in upright • 2) increase of head tilt noise with tilt • 3) prior width • 4) eye torsion amplitude
MODEL EXPLANATION OF NOISE LEVELS:SVV vs SBT PRECISION • SVV is less noisy than the SBT (remarkable, but explained by model) • SBT becomes more noisy at larger tilt (supports model assumption) • SBT noise levels compatible with head-tilt fit results
CONCLUSION • Accuracy-precision trade-off in spatial vision: • Bayesian strategy reduces noise at small tilts • causes systematic errors at large tilts
COWORKERS OCULOMOTOR CONTROL David Robinson Stan Gielen Fenno Ottes John van Opstal Arend Smit André Minken Karin Krommenhoek Bart Melis Vivek Chaturvedi Lo Bour DIck Stegeman Klaus Kopec Hubert Misslisch
COWORKERS SPATIAL AWARENESS Anton Van Beuzekom Ronald Kaptein Rens Vingerhoets Stan Van Pelt Maaike De Vrijer Pieter Medendorp
TECHNICAL SUPPORT Ger van Lingen Victor Langeveld Günter Windau Hans Kleijnen Ton van Dreumel Stijn Martens Wil Corbeek, Harrie van Brakel, Arno Engels, Jaap Nieboer (TD-FNWI) Fred Philipsen, Theo Arts (CDL)
FOR THIS SYMPOSIUM: • THE SPEAKERS: • Dora Angelaki • Bernhard Hess • Daniel Merfeld • Casper Erkelens • Wolfgang Becker • Jos Eggermont • THE ORGANIZERS: • Pieter Medendorp • John van Opstal • Stan Gielen • Margiet van Pelt