Angular displacement perception modulated by force background
Abstract
We had recumbent subjects (n = 7) indicate the amplitude of imposed, passive yaw-axis body rotations in the 0, 1, and 1.8 g background force levels generated during parabolic flight maneuvers. The blindfolded subject, restrained in a cradle, aligned a gravity-neutral pointer with the subjective vertical while in an initial position and then tried to keep it aligned with the same external direction during a body rotation, lasting less than 1.5 s about the z-axis 30 degrees, 60 degrees, or 120 degrees in amplitude. All the rotations were above semicircular threshold levels for eliciting perception of angular displacement under terrestrial test conditions. In 1 and 1.8 g test conditions, subjects were able to indicate both the subjective vertical and the amplitude of the body rotation reasonably accurately. By contrast in 0 g, when indicating the subjective vertical, they aligned the pointer with the body midline and kept it nearly aligned with their midline during the subsequent body tilts. They also reported feeling supine throughout the 0 g test periods. The attenuation of apparent self-displacement in 0 g is discussed in terms of (1) a possible failure of integration of semicircular canal velocity signals, (2) a contribution of somatosensory pressure and contact cues, and (3) gravicentric versus body-centric reference frames. The significance of the findings for predicting and preventing motion sickness and disorientation in orbital space flight and in rotating artificial gravity environments is discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In 1 g, blindfolded subjects were accurate in indicating angular displacement; in 0 g, they made a slight initial joystick movement then kept it aligned with body axis because they did not feel spatial displacement.
“Figure 5 shows that in 1 g, the blindfolded subjects were accurate in indicating their angular displacement. By contrast, in 0 g, they made a slight initial joystick movement in the direction of the turn, but then kept it aligned with their body axis because they did not feel any spatial displacement, just a slight initial tug in the direction they had actually been turned.”
From Motion sickness: more than nausea and vomiting (2014) · cites this paper as Lackner and DiZio 2009
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 13
- Authors
- Lackner, J. R., & DiZio, P.
- Affiliations
- Brandeis University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lackner, James R.
- Venue
- Experimental Brain Research
- Published
- 2009-04-19
- Volume
- 195
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 335-343
- ISSN
- 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1106
- OpenAlex
- W2149605592
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Spaceflight effects on biology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Keywords
- subjective visual vertical, parabolic flight, microgravity, body rotation, semicircular canals, vestibular integration, somatosensory cues, motion sickness, disorientation, spaceflight
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Gravitation, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Proprioception, Rotation, Space Perception, Weightlessness, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review