de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Poster

Do cause and effect need to be temporally continuous? Learning to compensate for delayed vestibular feedback

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons83870

Cunningham,  DW
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84026

Kreher,  BW
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84287

von der Heyde,  M
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons83839

Bülthoff,  HH
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Cunningham, D., Kreher, B., von der Heyde, M., & Bülthoff, H. (2001). Do cause and effect need to be temporally continuous? Learning to compensate for delayed vestibular feedback. Poster presented at First Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society (VSS 2001), Sarasota, FL, USA.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-E179-F
Abstract
Delaying the presentation of information to one modality relative to another (an intersensory temporal offset) impairs performance on a wide range of tasks. We have recently shown, however, that a few minutes exposure to delayed visual feedback induces sensorimotor temporal adaptation, returning performance to normal. Here, we examine whether adaptation to delayed vestibular feedback is possible. Subjects were placed on a motion platform, and were asked to perform a stabilization task. The task was similar to balancing a rod on the tip of your finger. Specifically, the platform acted as if it were on the end of an inverted pendulum, with subjects applying an acceleration to the platform via a joystick. The more difficulty one has in stabilizing the platform the more it will oscillate, increasing the variability in the platform's position. The experiment was divided into 3 sections. During the Baseline section (5 minutes), subjects performed the task with immediate vestibular feedback. They then were presented with a Training section, consisting of 4 sessions (5 minutes each) during which vestibular feedback was delayed by 500 ms. Finally, subjects were presented with a Post-test (two minutes) with no feedback delay. Subjects performed rather well in the Baseline section (average standard deviation of platform tilt was 1.37 degrees). The introduction of the delay greatly impaired performance (8.81 degrees standard deviation in the 1st Training session), but performance rapidly showed significant improvement (5.59 degrees standard deviation during the last training section, p<0.04). Subjects clearly learned to compensate, at least partially, for the delayed vestibular feedback. Performance during the Post-test was worse than during Baseline (2.48 degrees standard deviation in tilt). This decrease suggests that the improvement seen during training might be the result of intersensory temporal adaptation.