ArticleScientific reports2025
Psychophysical evidence for an internal model of gravity in the visual and vestibular estimates of vertical motion duration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of gravity on temporal properties and target selection in vertical pointing movements: a comparison between objective and subjective measures.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Effect of prism adaptation and virtual-tilted environment on straight-ahead and verticality perception in healthy individuals: evidence for dissociated 2D spatial coordinate systems.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Interception of visible and occluded ballistic trajectories: differential contributions by areas MT/V5, V6, V6A and the vestibular premotor cortex evaluated by TMS.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The motion of objects and ourselves along the vertical is affected by gravitational acceleration. However, the visual system is poorly sensitive to accelerations, and the otolith organs do not disassociate gravitational and inertial accelerations. Here, we tested the hypothesis that the brain estimates the duration of vertical visual motion and self-motion by means of an internal model of gravity predicting that downward motions are accelerated and upward motions are decelerated by gravity. In visual sessions, a target moved up or down while participants remained stationary. In vestibular sessions, participants were moved up or down in the absence of a visual target. In visual-vestibular sessions, participants were moved up or down while the visual target remained fixed in space. In all sessions, we verified that participants looked straight-ahead. We found that downward motions of either the visual target or the participant were systematically perceived as lasting less than upward motions of the same duration, and vice-versa for the opposite direction of motion, consistent with the predictions of the internal model of gravity. In visual-vestibular sessions, there was no significant difference in the average estimates of duration of downward and upward motion of the participant. However, there was large inter-subject variability of these estimates.
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.