↓ Skip to main content

Differential Effects of Visual Feedback on Subjective Visual Vertical Accuracy and Precision

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differential Effects of Visual Feedback on Subjective Visual Vertical Accuracy and Precision
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049311
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Bjasch, Christopher J. Bockisch, Dominik Straumann, Alexander A. Tarnutzer

Abstract

The brain constructs an internal estimate of the gravitational vertical by integrating multiple sensory signals. In darkness, systematic head-roll dependent errors in verticality estimates, as measured by the subjective visual vertical (SVV), occur. We hypothesized that visual feedback after each trial results in increased accuracy, as physiological adjustment errors (A-/E-effect) are likely based on central computational mechanisms and investigated whether such improvements were related to adaptational shifts of perceived vertical or to a higher cognitive strategy. We asked 12 healthy human subjects to adjust a luminous arrow to vertical in various head-roll positions (0 to 120deg right-ear down, 15deg steps). After each adjustment visual feedback was provided (lights on, display of previous adjustment and of an earth-vertical cross). Control trials consisted of SVV adjustments without feedback. At head-roll angles with the largest A-effect (90, 105, and 120deg), errors were reduced significantly (p<0.001) by visual feedback, i.e. roll under-compensation decreased, while precision of SVV was not significantly (p>0.05) influenced. In seven subjects an additional session with two consecutive blocks (first with, then without visual feedback) was completed at 90, 105 and 120deg head-roll. In these positions the error-reduction by the previous visual feedback block remained significant over the consecutive 18-24 min (post-feedback block), i.e., was still significantly (p<0.002) different from the control trials. Eleven out of 12 subjects reported having consciously added a bias to their perceived vertical based on visual feedback in order to minimize errors. We conclude that improvements of SVV accuracy by visual feedback, which remained effective after removal of feedback for ≥18 min, rather resulted from a cognitive strategy than by adapting the internal estimate of the gravitational vertical. The mechanisms behind the SVV therefore, remained stable, which is also supported by the fact that SVV precision - depending mostly on otolith input - was not affected by visual feedback.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 30%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 30%
Psychology 7 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2013.
All research outputs
#6,383,652
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#76,459
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,507
of 179,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,453
of 4,751 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 179,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,751 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.