ArticleProgress in brain research2019
The influence of target distance on perceptual self-motion thresholds and the vestibulo-ocular reflex during interaural translation.
Article in Progress in brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vestibular Precision at the Level of Perception, Eye Movements, Posture, and Neurons.Neuroscience · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
An elegant and influential mathematical model of eye movements is the geometric compensation required for visual fixation location in the translational vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). Compensatory eye velocity scales with the inverse of fixation distance during head translation because larger angular eye movements are required to minimize retinal slip during head translation when targets are closer. This model has been extensively verified in experiments. Since the VOR and vestibular perception have shared anatomic pathways, we asked whether the same scaling may affect motion perception. Since perception does not require the linear-to-angular transformation required for the translational VOR, we hypothesized that perception would not scale with target distance. Subjects were tested with a motion direction-recognition threshold task in which they reported their perception of small translations of their body. Thresholds were measured in three conditions: (1) with a near target (0.20m) that extinguished just before each motion; (2) with a far target (0.47m); 3) with no target. The subject was always in darkness during motion. Thresholds were 0.59, 0.61 and 0.61cm/s, respectively. Translational VOR sensitivity (eye angular velocity divided by head translation velocity) was also measured and modulated with target distance. The scaling ratio of responses for the near vs. far target was 0.97 for perceptual thresholds, which was significantly different from the compensatory ratio (2.35; P<0.001) and the translational VOR scaling ratio (1.59; P=0.007) but not from no compensation (1.00; P=0.93). Thus, we conclude that despite shared anatomy for the VOR and perception, the brain processes signals according to the geometric functional constraints of each task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.