The Effect Of Misleading Prior Information On The Subjective Visual Vertical

When tilted sideways participants misperceive the visual vertical assessed by means of a luminous line in otherwise complete dark- ness. A recent modeling approach (De Vrijer et al., 2009) claimed that these typical patterns of errors (known as A- and E-effects) could be explained by as- suming that participants behave in a Bayes optimal manner. In this study, we experimentally manipulate participants’ prior information about body-in-space orientation and measure the effect of this manipulation on the subjective visual vertical (SVV). Specifically, we explore the effects of veridical and misleading instructions about body tilt orientations on the SVV. We used a psychophys- ical 2AFC SVV task at roll tilt angles of 0 degrees, 16 degrees and 4 degrees CW and CCW. Participants were tilted to 4 degrees under different instruction conditions: in one condition, participants received veridical instructions as to their tilt angle, whereas in another condition, participants received the mis- leading instruction that their body position was perfectly upright. Our results indicate systematic differences between the instruction conditions at 4 degrees CW and CCW. Participants did not simply use an ego-centric reference frame in the misleading condition; instead, participants’ estimates of the SVV seem to lie between their head’s Z-axis and the estimate of the SVV as measured in the veridical condition. All participants displayed A-effects at roll tilt an- gles of 16 degrees CW and CCW. We discuss our results in the context of the Bayesian model by De Vrijer et al. (2009), and claim that this pattern of re- sults is consistent with a manipulation of precision of a prior distribution over body-in-space orientations. Furthermore, we introduce a Bayesian Generalized Linear Model for estimating parameters of participants’ psychometric function, which allows us to jointly estimate group level and individual level parameters under all experimental conditions simultaneously, rather than relying on the traditional two-step approach to obtaining group level parameter estimates.

Systematic diagonal and vertical errors in antisaccades and memory-guided saccades

Studies of memory-guided saccades in monkeys show an upward bias, while studies of antisaccades in humans show a diagonal effect, a deviation of endpoints toward the 45° diagonal. To determine if these two different spatial biases are specific to different types of saccades, we studied prosaccades, antisaccades and memory-guided saccades in humans. The diagonal effect occurred not with prosaccades but with antisaccades and memory-guided saccades with long intervals, consistent with hypotheses that it originates in computations of goal location under conditions of uncertainty. There was a small upward bias for memory-guided saccades but not prosaccades or antisaccades. Thus this bias is not a general effect of target uncertainty but a property specific to memory-guided saccades.

A Vertical Asymmetry in Saccades

Visual exploration of natural scenes imposes demands that differ between the upper and the lower visual hemifield. Yet little is known about how ocular motor performance is affected by the location of visual stimuli or the direction of a behavioural response. We compared saccadic latencies between upper and lower hemifield in a variety of conditions, including short-latency prosaccades, long-latency prosaccades, antisaccades, memory-guided sac- cades and saccades with increased attentional and selection demand. All saccade types, except memory guided saccades, had shorter latencies when saccades were directed to- wards the upper field as compared to downward saccades (p<0.05). This upper field reaction time advantage probably arises in ocular motor rather than visual processing. It may originate in structures involved in motor preparation rather than execution.