Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2026

Assessment of Static Graviceptive Perception in the Roll-Plane using the Subjective Visual Vertical Paradigm
Published on: April 28, 2020
Precision and accuracy of the subjective haptic vertical in the roll plane
Jeanine R Schuler1, Christopher J Bockisch, Dominik Straumann
1Department of Neurology, Zurich University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Background:
When roll-tilted, the subjective visual vertical (SVV) deviates up to 40 degrees from earth-vertical and trial-to-trial variability increases with head roll. Imperfections in the central processing of visual information were postulated to explain these roll-angle dependent errors. For experimental conditions devoid of visual input, e.g. adjustments of body posture or of an object along vertical in darkness, significantly smaller errors were noted. Whereas the accuracy of verticality adjustments seems to depend strongly on the paradigm, we hypothesize that the precision, i.e. the inverse of trial-to-trial variability, is less influenced by the experimental setup and mainly reflects properties of the otoliths. Here we measured the subjective haptic vertical (SHV) and compared findings with previously reported SVV data. Twelve healthy right-handed human subjects (handedness assessed based on subjects' verbal report) adjusted a rod with the right hand along perceived earth-vertical during static head roll-tilts (0-360 degrees , steps of 20 degrees ).
Results:
SHV adjustments showed a tendency for clockwise rod rotations to deviate counter-clockwise and for counter-clockwise rod rotations to deviate clockwise, indicating hysteresis. Clockwise rod rotations resulted in counter-clockwise shifts of perceived earth-vertical up to -11.7 degrees and an average counter-clockwise SHV shift over all roll angles of -3.3 degrees (+/- 11.0 degrees ; +/- 1 StdDev). Counter-clockwise rod rotations yielded peak SHV deviations in clockwise direction of 8.9 degrees and an average clockwise SHV shift over all roll angles of 1.8 degrees (+/- 11.1 degrees ). Trial-to-trial variability was minimal in upright position, increased with increasing roll (peaking around 120-140 degrees ) and decreased to intermediate values in upside-down orientation. Compared to SVV, SHV variability near upright and upside-down was non-significantly (p > 0.05) larger; both showed an m-shaped pattern of variability as a function of roll position.
Conclusions:
The reduction of adjustment errors by eliminating visual input supports the notion that deviations between perceived and actual earth-vertical in roll-tilted positions arise from central processing of visual information. The shared roll-tilt dependent modulation of trial-to-trial variability for both SVV and SHV, on the other hand, indicates that the perception of earth-verticality is dominated by the same sensory signal, i.e. the otolith signal, independent of whether the line/rod setting is under visual or tactile control.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Equation of Motion: General Plane motion - Problem Solving
The friction between the roller and the ground is characterized by two coefficients. The static friction coefficient is 0.15, while the kinetic friction coefficient is 0.1. These values are crucial in understanding the interaction between...
Vector Functions and Motion: Problem Solving
Absolute Motion Analysis- General Plane Motion
As the drone's propellers rotate, an upward force is generated that counteracts the force of gravity, enabling the drone to lift off from the ground. This initial movement of the drone is along a straight path, representing a form of translational motion. In this phase, every point on the drone...
Equilibrium and Balance
Accuracy and Precision
Instantaneous Center of Zero Velocity
To analyze this, consider two points on the wheel: point A and point B. The absolute velocity of point B can be expressed as the vector sum of the absolute velocity of point A and the relative velocity of point B with respect to point A. To simplify this analysis,...

