DOES INTERMITTENCE IN INDUCED ROTARY MOVEMENT HAVE ANY EXPLANATORY SIGNIFICANCE

Anthony Reinhardt-Rutland

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Induced rotary movement has been reported to start and stop repeatedly during 1 min of observation. This has been taken as evidence for the involvement either of cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus or of roll vection. Both assertions are dubious. Regarding cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus, available evidence shows that it is too weak to be important in induced rotary movement. Also, induced rotary movement and cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus are affected differently by the velocity of eliciting stimulation. Regarding roll vection, the conditions for its intermittence do not match those for induced rotary movement. Also, although aftereffects for induced rotary movement are negative, those for roll vection are positive and negative. Intermittence in induced rotary movement may be parsimoniously explained as characteristic of a weak effect.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages579-582
    JournalPERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
    Volume49
    Issue number6
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 1991

    Fingerprint

    Optokinetic Nystagmus
    Observation

    Cite this

    Reinhardt-Rutland, Anthony. / DOES INTERMITTENCE IN INDUCED ROTARY MOVEMENT HAVE ANY EXPLANATORY SIGNIFICANCE. In: PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS. 1991 ; Vol. 49, No. 6. pp. 579-582.
    @article{740e4f45e02e4d6d9e7cc5b469cc784f,
    title = "DOES INTERMITTENCE IN INDUCED ROTARY MOVEMENT HAVE ANY EXPLANATORY SIGNIFICANCE",
    abstract = "Induced rotary movement has been reported to start and stop repeatedly during 1 min of observation. This has been taken as evidence for the involvement either of cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus or of roll vection. Both assertions are dubious. Regarding cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus, available evidence shows that it is too weak to be important in induced rotary movement. Also, induced rotary movement and cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus are affected differently by the velocity of eliciting stimulation. Regarding roll vection, the conditions for its intermittence do not match those for induced rotary movement. Also, although aftereffects for induced rotary movement are negative, those for roll vection are positive and negative. Intermittence in induced rotary movement may be parsimoniously explained as characteristic of a weak effect.",
    author = "Anthony Reinhardt-Rutland",
    year = "1991",
    month = "6",
    language = "English",
    volume = "49",
    pages = "579--582",
    journal = "Perception and Psychophysics",
    issn = "0031-5117",
    number = "6",

    }

    DOES INTERMITTENCE IN INDUCED ROTARY MOVEMENT HAVE ANY EXPLANATORY SIGNIFICANCE. / Reinhardt-Rutland, Anthony.

    In: PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, Vol. 49, No. 6, 06.1991, p. 579-582.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - DOES INTERMITTENCE IN INDUCED ROTARY MOVEMENT HAVE ANY EXPLANATORY SIGNIFICANCE

    AU - Reinhardt-Rutland, Anthony

    PY - 1991/6

    Y1 - 1991/6

    N2 - Induced rotary movement has been reported to start and stop repeatedly during 1 min of observation. This has been taken as evidence for the involvement either of cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus or of roll vection. Both assertions are dubious. Regarding cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus, available evidence shows that it is too weak to be important in induced rotary movement. Also, induced rotary movement and cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus are affected differently by the velocity of eliciting stimulation. Regarding roll vection, the conditions for its intermittence do not match those for induced rotary movement. Also, although aftereffects for induced rotary movement are negative, those for roll vection are positive and negative. Intermittence in induced rotary movement may be parsimoniously explained as characteristic of a weak effect.

    AB - Induced rotary movement has been reported to start and stop repeatedly during 1 min of observation. This has been taken as evidence for the involvement either of cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus or of roll vection. Both assertions are dubious. Regarding cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus, available evidence shows that it is too weak to be important in induced rotary movement. Also, induced rotary movement and cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus are affected differently by the velocity of eliciting stimulation. Regarding roll vection, the conditions for its intermittence do not match those for induced rotary movement. Also, although aftereffects for induced rotary movement are negative, those for roll vection are positive and negative. Intermittence in induced rotary movement may be parsimoniously explained as characteristic of a weak effect.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 49

    SP - 579

    EP - 582

    JO - Perception and Psychophysics

    T2 - Perception and Psychophysics

    JF - Perception and Psychophysics

    SN - 0031-5117

    IS - 6

    ER -