Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41920805›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Explaining attractive and repulsive biases in the subjective visual vertical.

Stefan Glasauer, W Pieter Medendorp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Stefan GlasauerComputational Neuroscience, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4313-6210
W Pieter MedendorpDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9615-4220

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perception of gravity can be assessed by measuring the subjective visual vertical (SVV), the visually indicated spatial direction that appears earth-vertical to an observer. When the SVV is assessed in darkness while the observer is roll-tilted, it shows substantial biases. At tilts larger than 45°, the bias is attractive, that is, the visual indicator appears vertical when rotated toward the observer. At smaller tilts, however, a repulsive bias is observed. The attractive bias has been explained within the Bayesian framework as the effect of a prior for upright posture. The repulsive bias has so far been considered anti-Bayesian, suboptimal, or as the result of uncompensated ocular counterroll. Here we show that both biases can be explained within a purely Bayesian model. More specifically, the repulsive bias at small roll-tilts is a consequence of the known tilt-dependent variability of the SVV, which is hypothesized to reflect different levels of sensory noise of the otolith organs. We thus provide a solution to a century-old question of why there is a repulsive bias in vertical perception.

Indexed as

Gravity SensingModels, BiologicalSpace PerceptionVisual PerceptionBayes TheoremComputational BiologyHumans

Identifiers

PMID41920805
PMCPMC13061328

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.