Tilt perception is different in the pitch and roll planes in human.
full flight simulator
motion perception
otoliths
perceptual threshold
pilot
semicircular canal
vestibular perception
Journal
Physiological reports
ISSN: 2051-817X
Titre abrégé: Physiol Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101607800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
revised:
21
04
2022
received:
23
11
2021
accepted:
27
05
2022
pubmed:
14
2
2023
medline:
16
2
2023
entrez:
13
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Neurophysiological tests probing the vestibulo-ocular, colic and spinal pathways are the gold standard to evaluate the vestibular system in clinics. In contrast, vestibular perception is rarely tested despite its potential usefulness in professional training and for the longitudinal follow-up of professionals dealing with complex man-machine interfaces, such as aircraft pilots. This is explored here using a helicopter flight simulator to probe the vestibular perception of pilots. The vestibular perception of nine professional helicopter pilots was tested using a full flight helicopter simulator. The cabin was tilted six times in roll and six times in pitch (-15°, -10°, -5°, 5°, 10° and 15°) while the pilots had no visual cue. The velocities of the outbound displacement of the cabin were kept below the threshold of the semicircular canal perception. After the completion of each movement, the pilots were asked to put the cabin back in the horizontal plane (still without visual cues). The order of the 12 trials was randomized with two additional control trials where the cabin stayed in the horizontal plane but rotated in yaw (-10° and +10°). Pilots were significantly more precise in roll (average error in roll: 1.15 ± 0.67°) than in pitch (average error in pitch: 2.89 ± 1.06°) (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: p < 0.01). However, we did not find a significant difference either between left and right roll tilts (p = 0.51) or between forward and backward pitch tilts (p = 0.59). Furthermore, we found that the accuracies were significantly biased with respect to the initial tilt. The greater the initial tilt was, the less precise the pilots were, although maintaining the direction of the tilt, meaning that the error can be expressed as a vestibular error gain in the ability to perceive the modification in the orientation. This significant result was found in both roll (Friedman test: p < 0.01) and pitch (p < 0.001). However, the pitch trend error was more prominent (gain = 0.77 vs gain = 0.93) than roll. This study is a first step in the determination of the perceptive-motor profile of pilots, which could be of major use for their training and their longitudinal follow-up. A similar protocol may also be useful in clinics to monitor the aging process of the otolith system with a simplified testing device.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36780905
doi: 10.14814/phy2.15374
pmc: PMC9925277
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e15374Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society.
Références
Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 4;9(1):14323
pubmed: 31586151
Extrem Physiol Med. 2013 Jan 03;2(1):2
pubmed: 23849216
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008 Apr;9(4):292-303
pubmed: 18319728
Ear Hear. 2020 Nov/Dec;41(6):1772-1774
pubmed: 33136650
J Neurophysiol. 2021 Feb 1;125(2):672-686
pubmed: 33502934
Neurosci Lett. 2020 Jun 21;730:135055
pubmed: 32428605
Neuroimage. 2020 Oct 1;219:117015
pubmed: 32505699
Percept Psychophys. 1998 Feb;60(2):331-47
pubmed: 9529916
J Neurosci. 2012 Sep 26;32(39):13537-42
pubmed: 23015443
J Vestib Res. 1995 May-Jun;5(3):211-21
pubmed: 7627380
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2000 Sep;71(9 Suppl):A92-9
pubmed: 10993317
Exp Brain Res. 2020 Jun;238(6):1499-1509
pubmed: 32444940
Acta Otolaryngol. 1971 Dec;72(6):429-36
pubmed: 5316344
J Neurophysiol. 2012 Feb;107(3):973-83
pubmed: 22072512
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999 May 28;871:324-33
pubmed: 10372082
Prog Brain Res. 2019;248:249-267
pubmed: 31239136
Brain Res Bull. 1996;40(5-6):443-7; discussion 448-9
pubmed: 8886372
Exp Brain Res. 1999 Jan;124(1):80-8
pubmed: 9928792
Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 25;169(10):938-44
pubmed: 19468085
Neuroscience. 2018 Nov 21;393:350-365
pubmed: 30189227
Am J Otolaryngol. 1989 Nov-Dec;10(6):422-9
pubmed: 2688446
Front Neurol. 2021 Feb 19;12:643634
pubmed: 33679594
Aviat Space Environ Med. 1986 Nov;57(11):1088-96
pubmed: 3790028
Exp Brain Res. 2008 Apr;186(4):677-81
pubmed: 18350283
J Neurophysiol. 1989 Jul;62(1):247-63
pubmed: 2754476
Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2016;87(10):852-861
pubmed: 27662347
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2003 Jul;56(5):909-23
pubmed: 12850991
Ageing Res Rev. 2016 Mar;26:72-80
pubmed: 26739358
Exp Brain Res. 1989;77(1):166-82
pubmed: 2792260
Front Neurol. 2017 Nov 08;8:578
pubmed: 29167656
J Neurophysiol. 2009 Jan;101(1):141-9
pubmed: 18971293
J Vestib Res. 2012;22(4):173-80
pubmed: 23142831
J Neurophysiol. 2018 Dec 1;120(6):3187-3197
pubmed: 30379610
Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2016 May;87(5):454-63
pubmed: 27099084
Curr Opin Neurol. 2014 Feb;27(1):125-32
pubmed: 24335799
Exp Brain Res. 2014 Apr;232(4):1249-58
pubmed: 24463426
J Neurophysiol. 2017 May 1;117(5):2037-2052
pubmed: 28179477
Exp Brain Res. 2000 Jan;130(1):2-26
pubmed: 10638437
Physiol Rep. 2023 Feb;11(3):e15374
pubmed: 36780905
J Neurophysiol. 1976 Sep;39(5):996-1008
pubmed: 824414
J Vestib Res. 1993 Fall;3(3):361-72
pubmed: 8275269
J Physiol. 1961 Mar;155:506-13
pubmed: 13782902
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992 May 22;656:124-39
pubmed: 1599138
Neuroreport. 2002 Oct 28;13(15):1957-61
pubmed: 12395099
Semin Hear. 2015 Aug;36(3):175-96
pubmed: 27516717
Age (Dordr). 2012 Oct;34(5):1179-94
pubmed: 21850402
Front Neurol. 2016 Oct 03;7:162
pubmed: 27752252
Front Integr Neurosci. 2014 Jan 13;7:108
pubmed: 24454282
J Neurosci. 2007 Jan 24;27(4):771-81
pubmed: 17251416