Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26319547›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2015

Human discrimination of head-centred visual-inertial yaw rotations.

Alessandro Nesti, Karl A Beykirch, Paolo Pretto, Heinrich H Bülthoff

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The neural basis for violations of Weber's law in self-motion perception.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alessandro NestiDepartment of Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. alessandro.nesti@tuebingen.mpg.de.
Karl A BeykirchDepartment of Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Paolo PrettoDepartment of Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Heinrich H BülthoffDepartment of Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. heinrich.buelthoff@tuebingen.mpg.de.
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To successfully perform daily activities such as maintaining posture or running, humans need to be sensitive to self-motion over a large range of motion intensities. Recent studies have shown that the human ability to discriminate self-motion in the presence of either inertial-only motion cues or visual-only motion cues is not constant but rather decreases with motion intensity. However, these results do not yet allow for a quantitative description of how self-motion is discriminated in the presence of combined visual and inertial cues, since little is known about visual-inertial perceptual integration and the resulting self-motion perception over a wide range of motion intensity. Here we investigate these two questions for head-centred yaw rotations (0.5 Hz) presented either in darkness or combined with visual cues (optical flow with limited lifetime dots). Participants discriminated a reference motion, repeated unchanged for every trial, from a comparison motion, iteratively adjusted in peak velocity so as to measure the participants' differential threshold, i.e. the smallest perceivable change in stimulus intensity. A total of six participants were tested at four reference velocities (15, 30, 45 and 60 °/s). Results are combined for further analysis with previously published differential thresholds measured for visual-only yaw rotation cues using the same participants and procedure. Overall, differential thresholds increase with stimulus intensity following a trend described well by three power functions with exponents of 0.36, 0.62 and 0.49 for inertial, visual and visual-inertial stimuli, respectively. Despite the different exponents, differential thresholds do not depend on the type of sensory input significantly, suggesting that combining visual and inertial stimuli does not lead to improved discrimination performance over the investigated range of yaw rotations.

Indexed as

AdultDiscrimination, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotion PerceptionProprioceptionRotationDifferential thresholdsMultisensory integrationPsychophysicsSelf-motion perceptionVectionVirtual realityYaw

Identifiers

PMID26319547
PMCPMC4646930
OpenAlexW2105830579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.