Perception
Do we misjudge how far we have turned our bodies?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
When turned on a chair with eyes closed, people consistently felt they had rotated further than they really had, and adding sound landmarks did not correct this.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Two within-subject psychophysics experiments: blindfolded participants passively rotated in the yaw plane on a motion chair judged whether they ended nearer 0° or 90°, with vestibular-only versus vestibular-plus-auditory-landmark trials (landmarks automatic in Exp 1, self-triggered in Exp 2); adaptive Psi procedure and fitted psychometric functions
- N
- N=32 · 16 participants in each experiment; after exclusions, 15 (bias) and 13 (JND) analysed in Experiment 1, and 11 (bias) and 12 (JND) in Experiment 2
- Population
- Healthy adults (mean ages 27.1 and 25.6 years in the two experiments) with no neurological, hearing or vestibular disorders, in Genoa, Italy
- Outcome
- Bias in perceived rotation amplitude (45° minus PSE) and precision (just noticeable difference) by condition and direction
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
In both experiments and in every condition, the rotation people perceived as 45° was physically smaller than 45°, meaning they overestimated how far they had turned. This bias was the same for clockwise and counterclockwise turns. Adding sound landmarks, whether automatic or self-triggered, did not significantly change the bias or the precision of judgements (in Experiment 2 the bias difference was not significant, p = 0.07).
Methodology
Blindfolded adults sat in a motorized chair that rotated them smoothly left or right by different amounts over 3 seconds. After each turn they judged whether they felt closer to their starting direction or to a point 90° to the side, which reveals which rotation feels like exactly halfway (45°). On some trials, virtual office sounds fixed in space were played before and after the turn as landmarks. In Experiment 1 these sounds played automatically; in Experiment 2 a new group of 16 people triggered the sounds themselves with a button press.
Limitations
Samples were small (16 per experiment) and several people were excluded as outliers or for technical problems, leaving as few as 11 in some analyses. The sound landmarks were only played before and after the rotation, never during it, so the study cannot rule out that moving or simultaneous sounds would change the bias, which the authors flag as a design limitation. Only one slow rotation frequency (0.33 Hz) was tested, so the Bayesian idea that faster, more reliable rotations would show less bias remains untested. Proposed explanations, such as a prior favouring straight ahead or temporo-parietal brain involvement, were not measured directly.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.