VISUAL DEPENDENCE IN POSTURAL CONTROL AND SPATIAL ORIENTATION Massimo Cenciarini1, Patrick J. Loughlin1,2, Mark S. Redfern1,3, Patrick J. Sparto1,3 Depts.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Kingdom for a Magnet! Finishing the topic.
Advertisements

CHANGES IN VERTICAL JUMP HEIGHT ACROSS EIGHT DAYS IN COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMPS PERFORMED BY NOVICE JUMPERS Michael E. Feltner, FACSM, Priscilla G. MacRae,
Virtual Reality as a Rehabilitative Tool for Persons with Vestibular Disorders-Preliminary Findings Whitney SL 1,2,4, Furman JM 1,2,3, Redfern MS 1,2,3,
Vestibular Rehabilitation using a Wide FOV Virtual Environment PJ Sparto, JM Furman, SL Whitney, LF Hodges, MS Redfern Sponsors Eye and Ear Foundation.
KINEMATICS/KINETICS CORRELATIONS OF ARM MOTOR CONTROL DURING CORIOLIS PERTURBATIONS. A. Pierobon, S.B. Bortolami, J.R. Lackner*, P. DiZio. Ashton Graybiel.
The Use of Virtual Reality for Persons with Balance Disorders Susan L. Whitney, PT, PhD, NCS, ATC University of Pittsburgh Supported by the National Institute.
The Contribution Of Central And Peripheral Vision To The Postural Sway Response Elicited By Moving Visual Environments In Healthy Children Aged 8-12 Sparto.
The Effect of Removing the Force Feedback during the Quiet Stance Jyrki Rasku Department of Computer Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland.
Reliance on Dynamic Visual Cues for Postural Control: Effect of Age is More Important than Unilateral Vestibular Hypofunction Patrick J. Sparto 1,2,3,
Postural Sway in a Virtual Environment in Patients With Unilateral Peripheral Vestibular Lesions Susan L. Whitney, PhD, PT, NCS, ATC Patrick J. Sparto,
Date of download: 6/29/2016 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Copyright © All rights reserved. From: Judging the shape of.
Date of download: 7/8/2016 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Effect of Inlet Velocity Profiles on Patient-Specific Computational Fluid Dynamics.
Different Types of Data
Date of download: 10/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.
Visual Control of Altitude in Flying Drosophila
Journal of Vision. 2008;8(13):9. doi: / Figure Legend:
Training Method Influences on Postural Stability
ALTERNATING CURRENT AND VOLTAGE
B. Sensory information is weighted dynamically to maintain balance and orientation under varying conditions. The figure illustrates findings from an experiment.
Visually-Induced Postural Sway in Children
Contribution of spatial and temporal integration in heading perception
Within a Mixed-Frequency Visual Environment
During Anterior-Posterior Optic Flow
Volume 60, Issue 4, Pages (November 2008)
MODELING MST OPTIC FLOW RESPONSES
11/24/2018 Sensory Re-Weighting In Human Postural Control During Moving-Scene Perturbations A. Mahboobin1, P. Loughlin1,2, Ph.D., M. Redfern3,2, Ph.D.,
Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages (December 2008)
A Source for Feature-Based Attention in the Prefrontal Cortex
Illusory Jitter Perceived at the Frequency of Alpha Oscillations
Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages (May 2008)
Perceptual Echoes at 10 Hz in the Human Brain
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages (December 2002)
Walking Modulates Speed Sensitivity in Drosophila Motion Vision
MODELING MST OPTIC FLOW RESPONSES
Vision: In the Brain of the Beholder
Sparto PJ, Furman JM, Jacobson JL, Whitney SL, Hodges LF, Redfern MS
Goal-Related Activity in V4 during Free Viewing Visual Search
Mismatch Receptive Fields in Mouse Visual Cortex
Minami Ito, Gerald Westheimer, Charles D Gilbert  Neuron 
Volume 55, Issue 3, Pages (August 2007)
Motion-Based Analysis of Spatial Patterns by the Human Visual System
A Switching Observer for Human Perceptual Estimation
Bartlett D. Moore, Caitlin W. Kiley, Chao Sun, W. Martin Usrey  Neuron 
Visual Control of Altitude in Flying Drosophila
Consequences of the Oculomotor Cycle for the Dynamics of Perception
Neural Mechanisms of Visual Motion Perception in Primates
Volume 81, Issue 5, Pages (March 2014)
The Information Content of Receptive Fields
A Switching Observer for Human Perceptual Estimation
Walking Modulates Speed Sensitivity in Drosophila Motion Vision
Volume 27, Issue 21, Pages e3 (November 2017)
Visual Contributions to Balance Control During Gait
Segregation of Object and Background Motion in Visual Area MT
Serial, Covert Shifts of Attention during Visual Search Are Reflected by the Frontal Eye Fields and Correlated with Population Oscillations  Timothy J.
Consequences of the Oculomotor Cycle for the Dynamics of Perception
TOPIC: ROTATING MAGNETIC FIELD DEPT: EEE
Adrián Hernández, Antonio Zainos, Ranulfo Romo  Neuron 
Stephen V. David, Benjamin Y. Hayden, James A. Mazer, Jack L. Gallant 
TOPIC: ROTATING MAGNETIC FIELD DEPT: EEE
Ilan Lampl, Iva Reichova, David Ferster  Neuron 
Dario Maschi, Vitaly A. Klyachko  Neuron 
Keith A. May, Li Zhaoping, Paul B. Hibbard  Current Biology 
Figure 1 Summary of patient-level SC-FC analysis pipeline
Colin J. Akerman, Darragh Smyth, Ian D. Thompson  Neuron 
Higher-Order Figure Discrimination in Fly and Human Vision
Multineuronal Firing Patterns in the Signal from Eye to Brain
Honghui Zhang, Andrew J. Watrous, Ansh Patel, Joshua Jacobs  Neuron 
Pairing-Induced Changes of Orientation Maps in Cat Visual Cortex
Anil K. Dasanna, Christine Lansche, Michael Lanzer, Ulrich S. Schwarz 
Maxwell H. Turner, Fred Rieke  Neuron 
Presentation transcript:

VISUAL DEPENDENCE IN POSTURAL CONTROL AND SPATIAL ORIENTATION Massimo Cenciarini1, Patrick J. Loughlin1,2, Mark S. Redfern1,3, Patrick J. Sparto1,3 Depts. of 1Bioengineering, 2Electrical & Computer Engineering, and 3Otolaryngology University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261

Objective & Hypothesis: Vision is used for both postural control and spatial orientation Do these two processes share common pathways? Do people that rely more on vision for postural control are also visually dependent for spatial orientation?

Methods Testing dependence on vision for postural control Postural response to visual perturbation Testing dependence on vision for spatial orientation Subjective visual vertical in different visual conditions Correlation between postural response and SVV result

Methods - Protocol Postural Testing Subjects viewed full field optic flow while standing on a modified Neurocom postural platform (Fig. 1A) Eyes open throughout 90 s trials Moving scene stimulus characteristics 60 s sinusoidal moving scene stimulus preceded and followed by 15 s stationary visual scene 16 cm peak-to-peak anterior-posterior (A/P) sinusoidal movement of visual scene at 0.1, 0.25, 0.4, 0.7, or 1 Hz Each frequency condition presented three consecutive times, in randomized triplets Support surface conditions Fixed support surface (first visit) Sway-referenced (second visit)

Methods - Protocol Subjective Visual Vertical testing Subject seated in the dark, 1 m from fluorescent rod (Fig. 1B) Rod (L 40 cm) initial position was ±40º with respect to vertical Background conditions No background (complete dark) Tilted fluorescent frame (90x90 cm) rotated ±28º Rotating disc of random dots (Ф 90 cm) at constant velocity of ±30º/s Subjects were allowed unlimited time to set the rod to vertical In all cases, no more than 30 sec were needed Two tests performed for each SVV condition

Methods - Protocol Figure 1: A. Setup for balance testing. Virtual reality environment to generate optic flow. B. Subjective visual vertical setup and background conditions. Top figure: subject being tested. Bottom figures: examples of background conditions.

Methods - Analysis Postural response to moving visual scene COP position data in the A/P direction was low-pass filtered (2 Hz cut-off) and down-sampled (5 Hz) Total root mean square (RMS) of COP during 60 s moving scene was calculated to characterize the amount of sway in response to visual perturbation Repeated measures ANOVA used to determine if RMS of COP was affected by surface condition and frequency of optic flow

Methods - Analysis SVV analysis Magnitude of the final rod position, or SVV, was measured to characterize dependence on vision for spatial orientation Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if SVV was affected by background condition

Results Postural response to moving visual scene RMS values were higher for the sway-referenced surface than for the fixed surface Fixed: 0.46 ± 0.28 cm (mean ± SD) Sway-referenced: 1.76 ± 0.80 cm (Fig. 2A) No significant difference was found among RMS values obtained at different stimulus frequencies for the fixed surface (p > 0.11) Significant effect of the stimulus frequency was found for the sway-referenced surface (p < 0.05). However, post-hoc analysis did not reveal any difference between each of the frequencies and the other four stimulus frequencies (Fig. 2A).

Methods - Protocol Figure 2: A. Mean value of RMS of COP at each stimulus frequency. Top-left: RMS for fixed surface. Top-right: RMS for sway-referenced surface.

Results SVV responses The effect of background condition was significant (p < 0.01); post-hoc analysis revealed that each background condition was different from the other two conditions (Fig. 2B) Average SVV deviation for no background condition was 1.0 ± 0.7º (mean ± SD) Average SVV deviation for frame condition was 4.9 ± 4.7º Average SVV deviation for disc condition was 8.2 ± 4.0º

Figure 2: B. Mean of SVV magnitude for each background condition. Methods - Protocol Figure 2: B. Mean of SVV magnitude for each background condition.

Results Correlation analysis results Mean value of RMS of COP across repetitions showed no significant correlation with mean value of magnitude of final rod position for both no-background and tilted frame conditions (Tab. 1) Table 1: Summary of results from correlation analysis between total RMS of COP and SVV magnitude for all surface and SVV background conditions. Correlation coefficient (r) and p-value are reported (Npts = 80).

Results Correlation analysis results Mean RMS value showed a positive correlation with mean magnitude of the final rod position for both fixed (r = 0.46) and sway-referenced (r = 0.58) surface conditions (p < 0.001) (Fig. 3)

Results Figure 3: Mean total RMS vs SVV magnitude for the disc condition. Left plot: RMS data for fixed surface. Right plot: RMS data for sway-referenced surface.

Comments from the ARO MWM The poster received a good acceptance at the meeting. It was surprising the no correlation was found between frame SVV and sway data. Maybe the two different scenes (full FOV and central FOV) don’t help for correlation of the responses. Would be possible to combine one of the two and run both experiments with one setup? It will be interesting to test this protocol on vestibular patients.

Suggestions from the ARO MWM What if we normalize the COP data by the height? “Angle”, which should be a good index of sway. What about using real scenarios instead of the checkered pattern to provide optic flow? Some think that real objects are more “provocative” that unrealistic scenes. Something to deal with perception and consciousness about the stimulation, therefore we should also look at the repetition and see if there are any changes over time in the trial sequence (Habituation).

My questions about this study Is it possible to test a A/P postural sway similarly to the SVV protocol? Possible postural testing protocol: Static visual cues: scene of a forward/backward tilt at different angles (fixed and sway-ref) Dynamic visual cues: since the SVV has a constant spinning velocity, would be possible to have a peripheral spinning scenario to see how the subjects sway would vary in response to it? It would be interesting if we could quantify the influence of static and dynamic cues in different environmental conditions, and this is also important for modeling purposes.

Any Comments? Please feel free to give me a feedback about the material I just showed you. Thanks!!