Dual processing of visual rotation for bipedal stance control.
When standing, the gain of the body-movement response to a sinusoidally moving visual scene has been shown to get smaller with faster stimuli, possibly through changes in the apportioning of visual flow to self-motion or environment motion. We investigated whether visual-flow speed similarly influences the postural response to a discrete, unidirectional rotation of the visual scene in the frontal plane. Contrary to expectation, the evoked postural response consisted of two sequential components with opposite relationships to visual motion speed. With faster visual rotation the early component became smaller, not through a change in gain but by changes in its temporal structure, while the later component grew larger. We propose that the early component arises from the balance control system minimising apparent self-motion, while the later component stems from the postural system realigning the body with gravity.



The source of visual motion is inherently ambiguous such that movement of objects in the environment can evoke self-motion illusions and postural adjustments. Theoretically, the brain can mitigate this problem by combining visual signals with other types of information. A Bayesian model that achieves this was previously proposed and predicts a decreasing gain of postural response with increasing visual motion speed. Here we test this prediction for discrete, unidirectional, full-field visual rotations in the frontal plane of standing subjects. The speed (0.75-48 deg s(-1) ) and direction of visual rotation was pseudo-randomly varied and mediolateral responses were measured from displacements of the trunk and horizontal ground reaction forces. The behaviour evoked by this visual rotation was more complex than has hitherto been reported, consisting broadly of two consecutive components with respective latencies of ∼190 ms and >0.7 s. Both components were sensitive to visual rotation speed, but with diametrically opposite relationships. Thus, the early component decreased with faster visual rotation, while the later component increased. Furthermore, the decrease in size of the early component was not achieved by a simple attenuation of gain, but by a change in its temporal structure. We conclude that the two components represent expressions of different motor functions, both pertinent to the control of bipedal stance. We propose that the early response stems from the balance control system attempting to minimise unintended body motion, while the later response arises from the postural control system attempting to align the body with gravity.
Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. brian.day@ucl.ac.uk.
Brian L
BL
Day
Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Timothy
T
Muller
Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Joanna
J
Offord
Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Irene
I
Di Giulio
D000328:Adult; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011187:Posture / Q000502:physiology*; D012399:Rotation; D055815:Young Adult
J Exp Psychol. 1946 Dec;36(6):526-35
20279299
PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Feb 19;6(2):e1000680
20174552
Nature. 2004 Jan 15;427(6971):244-7
14724638
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
9176952
Eur J Neurosci. 2012 Apr;35(7):1169-79
22487045
Exp Brain Res. 1995;105(1):101-10
7589307
J Gen Physiol. 1937 Jul 20;20(6):831-50
19873031
Vision Res. 1981;21(12):1773-82
7336615
Science. 2005 Apr 15;308(5720):416-9
15831760
Science. 1972 Dec 15;178(4066):1217-9
4637810
J Vestib Res. 1990-1991;1(3):317-23
1670164
Perception. 1973;2(3):287-94
4546578
Vision Res. 1990;30(11):1677-88
2288083
Exp Brain Res. 1997 Feb;113(2):243-8
9063710
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
9176953
Exp Brain Res. 2005 Dec;167(4):535-56
16132969
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Apr;11(2):259-66
11275487
Curr Biol. 2005 Sep 20;15(18):1657-62
16169488
Exp Brain Res. 2011 May;210(3-4):407-22
21293850
Exp Brain Res. 1977 Jun 27;28(3-4):363-84
885185
Percept Psychophys. 1986 May;39(5):355-60
3737368
Nat Neurosci. 2010 Aug;13(8):1020-6
20581842
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2007 Oct 09;4:39
17922922
Exp Brain Res. 1973 Mar 19;16(5):476-91
4695777
Exp Brain Res. 2002 Dec;147(4):558-60
12444489