Adapting to inversion of the visual field: a new twist on an old problem.
Level 4 - case-series / case-control
Non-clinical human laboratory behavioral experiment and computational modeling (by design analogy).
PubMed 23700129 · doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3565-6
What was done
The authors developed computational models of sensorimotor adaptation to compare visual displacement versus visual field inversion, focusing on changes in sensitivity derivatives (how motor command changes affect task errors). They then tested model predictions by measuring human performance on pointing tasks during visual perturbation with displacing prisms and continually inverting prisms over up to 8 days.
What was found
The abstract reports no numerical values, effect sizes, or test statistics. Experimentally, subjects performing pointing tasks under inverted vision initially exhibited worsening accuracy, followed by improvement. However, recovery was jagged rather than smooth, and motor performance remained unstable even after 8 days of continuous visual inversion.
Why it matters
This study provides a computational framework explaining why visual inversion takes weeks to adapt to compared to visual displacement, demonstrating that simple parameter updates cannot explain the unstable, jagged recovery observed during inverted vision.
Limits
The abstract does not state the sample size, participant demographics, statistical significance, or specific numerical error rates. Because testing was limited to laboratory pointing tasks, generalizability to full daily motor behavior remains unquantified.
Cited by
- context Wearing inverting prism glasses causes the perceived visual field to flip right-side up after an adaptation period of continuous wear.