Comparison of autokinetic movement perceived by normal persons and deaf subjects with bilateral labyrinthine defects - Aerospace medicin

Graybiel, A.

Miller, E. F., II

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

16 FEBRUARY1962
Research Report
COMPARISON OF AUTO KINETIC MOVEMENT PERCEIVEDBY
NORMAL PERSONSAND DEAF SUBJECTSWITH BILATERAL
LABYRINTHINE DEFECTS*
Earl F. Miller, !! and Ashton Grayblel
Bureauof Medicine and Surgery
Project MR005.13-6001
Subtask I Report No. 66
NASA Order R-lit-P9
Re;casedBy
Captain Clifford P. Phoebus, MC USN
CommandingOfficer
*This researchwasconducted under the sponsorshipof the Office of Life
Science Programs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Grant R-37).
U. S. NAVAL SCHOOL OF AVIATION MEDICINE
U. S. NAVAL AVIATION MEDICAL CENTER
PENSACOLA,FLORIDA
I
1965026831-002
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19650026831 2020-03-16T22:05:18+00:00Z
SU.b_v_ARYPAGE
THE PROBLEM
The object of this otudywas to determine the effect of an absence of the sensory
organsa_ t_.e inner ear upon autoklnetic movement.
FINDINGS
Autoklnesls as perceived by nine normals and nine bilateral labyrinthine defective
(L.D.) subject_wasmeasuredby a simple and highly reliable method. Eachsubject
participated in two _ials (one sifting, the other recumbent), each of abou! fifteen
minutes' duratlon. The resultsconfirmed an earlier finding that the sensoryorgansof
the inner ear are not essential for the perception of autoklnetlc movement. Furthermore:
the orncuntof angular autokinetic movementwasfound to be significantly greater, on
the average, in the labyrinthine defective group than in the normal group of subjects.
Thesefindingssuggestthat the sensory input from the organsof the inner ear under the
conditions of the experiment tended either directly or indirectly to stabilize the fixation
target in space. No significant differences in autoklnesiswere manifestedbetween the
two hec.d(body) positions for either group.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the follbwing personswho
acted as subjects in this study: J. M. Jordan, H. J. Domlch, D. O. Peters.n, D. W.
Myers, C. R. Harper, R. E. Piper, J. P. Zakutney, A. E. Steele, H_ L. Lawson, B. !.
Gulak, B. A. Cyr, R. B. Hunt, R. W. Smith, C. C. Nugent, D. B. _lllis, T. F.
Thurman, G. Zel, L. W. Hill, and T. R. Hays.
II
1965026831-003
INTRODUCTION
The principal obiectlve of the present investigation was to measurethe effect of
deafferentatlon of the sensoryorgansof the inner ear on the autoklnetic phenomenon.*
Insofaras we are aware, the only pre_,:ousstudydealing specifically with th_sproblem
consistedof a comparisonof ¢ctuai and autokinetlc movementsin sevendeaf personswith
complete or nearly complete destruction of the nonaudltc,ry labyr:'nths (4). With target
actually moving in random fnshlon a distance of 5 to 7 feet in one mlnu_e, the subjects
attempted to trace on paper the pattern of movement. The estimate of distance traveled
varied from 1 to 10 feet, with a group average of approximately 5 feet. With target
stationary the estimated average distance of the autoklnetlc movement ranged from 1 to
6 feet, with a group average of over 2 feet. The three subjects who reoorted the highest
values for the actual movement clso reported the highest values for the autoklnetlc move-
ment. it wasconcluded that the sensoryorgans of the inner ear were not essential for
perception of autoklnesls but left uncnswered the question as to what role if any they
played. The findings in the study now to be reported suggest, if they do not prove, that
the absence of the sensoryorgans of the inner ear increases the tendency to perceive auto-
kinetic movement.
PROCEDURE
SUBJECTS
Nine normalpersonsaged 17 to 32 and nine deaf subjectsuged 20 to 43 with bilater-
al labyrinthine defects (L. D.subjects) were tested. All of the subjectswere males. All
in the control groupwere students; sevenwere medical students. The L. D. group con-
sistedof six studentsand three instructorsfrom Gallaudet College. The c!inical findings
and resultsof functional testsof auricular sensoryorganson this group are presentedin
Table I.
APPARATUS
The experiment wascarried out in a dark roomcontaining an inner cubicle in which
the subject either sator lay on his side (Figure 1). A chin and forehead rest were pro-
vided to stabilize the headof the subject when he was seatedon the stoel. When on his
left side, the subjeci's head and shoulderswere fixed by meansof a molded fiberglass
appliance, and his body restedon a four-inch foam rubbermattress. Theautoklnetic
*Autokinesls may be defined as the apparent movementof objects when viewed against
a backgroundin which visual cues are inadequate. The basic mechanismis unknown.
1965026831-004
U U U
m
U D _ 0
> _ - _Y
o _ _>- -- _ _ _U
0 _ _ o o o o o o
E E E c c
_0 c _ c
> _ _
.--
"- _
_ .= O=_o = o = _ = _ 0 0
_ _ o o o _ o 0 0
_ 0 U U
.E _ o _ _
_ C C C C C C C C C
-- _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
o
I ) _" _ ) _ _
I u
_ °_
0
C _ C _ _ C C C
_ 0 0 0 0 0
_ m g g _
0 o5
_ _ e e e e
0 O_ ! _ m
"- .- .5 .5 .5 .5 _ _ _ _
O0 ei e-- =- e-- o-- e-- e-- =-- o--
C C C
.__ = ® ® = = ® = ® ® ®
1965026831-005
....... = ,
\
! I!
It
3
1965026831-006
stimuluswas a dim point sourceof collimated light, 1.5 metersfrom the subject. Data
were collected w|th the aid of a reference chart (Figure 2 a,b) and tape recorder.
METHOD
Each subject was provided with a det_;Tledwritten description of the procedure and
received instruction in the useof the tape recorder and reference chart.* With cubicle
lighted and the subject's head fixed, the center of the chart was placed directly before
his dominanteye, the other having been covered with an opaque patch. He wasrequired
to commit to memorythe approximate angular dimensionsof the rings which were to be
used in estimatingdistance from the center of the visual field, i.e., inner, middle, and
outer third. The radial direction was e_timatedusingthe numeralson a clock dlal. The
chart was then removedand the roomdarkened. The target light was placed in a fronta
parallel plane at a distance of 1.5 metersand adjustedvertically and horizontally in
this plane sothat it appeared directly before the subject'sdominanteye. On signal, the
subject fixated the target and gave a running account for about fifteen minutesof all
perceived movementswhich was tape recorded. After a rest period of at least thirty
minutesthe experimental trial wasrepeated with the subject lying on his left side. At
the erd of each of the two periodsthe subject assistedthe experimenter in plotting the
autokinetic movementon the reference chart (Figure 2 c ,[-_ basedon a playback of the
tape recording.
The apparent movementof the target from one identified position to another was
representedby a straight llne when the actual path of travel ,vas not described. This is
an approximationsince autoklnetlc movementis not restricted to a rectilinear courseand
may have followed other formssuchas a curve, or wave. In addition, movementof the
light towardand away from the observeroccasionally wasreported spontaneous!y,but
no attempt wasmadeto estimate the extent of thismovement. Even with this procedure,
individual variations or errorsin judgingspatial relationshipswithout the aid of visual
reference cues could exist and affect the reliab;lffy of this method especially for absolute
measurementsof autokinesls. Thismethod, however, hasthe advantage of being relative-
ly simpleto useand yie!dlng a fairly high !:est-retestreliability. A measureof reliability
wasobtained by correlating the average apparent movementfound Jr1the upright position
with that in the r _cumbentposition ( r = 0.97, normals; r = 0.80, L. D. subjects).
Each subjectparticipated in two trials, one sitting, tee other recumbent. The total
linear distancesplotted an thesechartswere measuredand converted info angular magnl-
tucleJ. Thesevalues divided by the total time yielded the numberof degreesof apparent
movementper minute for each subject in the two head (body)positions.
m =i
*Subjects (PE, DO, JO) were glven verbal instructions in lleu of a display of the
reference chart.
4
1965026831-007
$M
I I
I 6 " //
:, 6
,>
: __ 40 °
_, Figure2 a
_' An EstlmatedRecordof the Autoklnetlc Movement in a Normal Subject (SM)
__ 5
1965026831-008
,2 G U
II I
.._ ..... 40 ° ..... _3..
Figure 2 b
An Estimated Record of the Autoklnetlc Movement in an L. D. Subiet (GU)
6
1965026831-009
RESULTS
Sl_0wnin Figure 2 a,b are a chart of a nolmal subject (SM) and one of an L. D.
subject (GU) manifestingnearestto average amountsof autoklneslsin their respective
groups. The resultsof all subjectsare summarizedin Table II. It is appa,'entthat a
considerabledifference in the average autokinetlc movementexistsbetween the two
groups. This intergroup difference for both head (body)positionswas found to be
significant, standarderror of the difference, t_" d = 5.3, uprlght; _ d = 4.7,
left side. On the other hand, intragroup (normaland L, D.) dif._erenceswere not
significant in e|ther posltion.
Although significantly greater average autokinei _cmovementwaspercelved by
the L. D. subjects, there is _omecv o,rlap of the individual scoresamongthe hvo groups.
DISCUSSION
Many factors, in addltlon to variables related to the fixation target and visual
background, have been shownto influence autaklnetic movementincluding pathological
states(4,7,10), fatigue (1,_1, the exhibition of drugs(1), suggestion(1-3, 8)auto-
suggestion(2,5), stlmulatlon)f F,oprioceptors in eye and neck muscles(1,2,6), ar,d
stimulationof the sensoryorg_nsof the inner ear (6,9). It is evldent that all of these
factorssomehowmustinfluen(e illusory movement, but the mechanismsinvolved are
largely unknownand even dltficult to classify.
With regard to stimulatlonof the sensoryorgansof the inner ear, it hasbeen report-
ed that heat applled over the mastoidr_|on causedthe target to appear to moveprefer-
ent_ally toward that slde (6); that galvanic stlmulat_on, usingexternnl electrodes, pro-
duced on apparent target movement toward the ear with negati'_,_e!ec.'Tode(6); ond that
an acoustic stimulusresulted in directional autokinefic movements(9). In |nterpretlng
these findings it is necessaryto point out that the semicircular canals migl_t have L.en
stimulatedwith each of the three stlmul| mentionedabove and that thls, in turn, might
have resulted in a form of apparent movement, the oculogyral |lluslon, which is ind|s-
t|nguishable at timesfrom autokines|s (4). Thusa questionremalnswhether the above
findings indicate a,. influence on autokinetic movementor the substitutionof the oculo-
gyral for the autokln-tlc illusion.
7
1965026831-010
Table !t
-,'_ "-'.7 "-- _heAve_ane Apparent Movement in Degrees of Arc
Pe, Mi_-ute Fcr the Normal and L. D. Subjects
Head (Bod_ Position
Upright (Trial i) Left Side (Trial 2)
Normal Subiects
Hi 1.1 3.2
HY 5.i 9.7
ZE 10.5 12.4
GI 4.3 8.4
SM 9.5 13.8
HU 4.1 5.9
TH 0.7 7.0
CY 24.0 28.6
NU 32. I 31.9
Average: 11.2 13.4
S.D. 9..' 9.5
L. D. Subjects
LA 46.6 41.0
GU 22.7 21.6
JC 13.5 15.1
PE 13.2 17.3
MY 21.6 20.0
HR 40.0 37.3
ZA 31.3 40.0
ST 43.7 42. I
DO 13.4 34.2
Average: 27.3 29.8
S.D. 12.7 10,5
8
III I
1965026831-011
With regard to deaf_erentlation of the sensoryorgans of the inner ear, the
results in the prgsent experiment not only confirm the earlier findings (4) that the
sensoryorgans cf the inner ear are not essential for the perception of he autoklnetic
phenomenon, but they also indicate that the amount of angular ,movementis greater in
personswho _,ave little or no residual function of these sensoryorgans compared _.."th
persons in whom these functions are normal. If these findings are valid, it follows that
the sensory input from the organs of the inner ear under the conditions of our experiment
either directly or indirectly tended to stabil."zE,the fixation t_rget in space.
Unfortunately our data do not offer an opportunity tc distinguish between the
relative roles of the three organsconcerned except possibly in the caseof _heotollth
apparatus. Somec,f our L. D. sukjects hada significant degree of residual function
of these organsas meosur_dby the oculogravlc illusion test. A comparisonbetween the
amountof au!oklnesls in the four subjectswith little or no function and the five with a
significant residuums.howsno regular differences, but the numbersare small.
9
I
1965026831-012
REFERENCES
1. Adams, H., Autokinetlc sensations. Psychol. Man., 59:_32-44, 1912.
2. Can', Ha, The autokinetic sensation. Psychol. Rev., 17: 62--68, 1910.
3. Grayblel, A., and Clark, B., The autoklnetic illusion and its s|gnificance in
night flying. J. Avlat. Med., 16: 111-151, !945.
4. Graybiel, A., and Niven, I., Persistence of the autokinetic illusion in persons
-_with bilateral injury or destruction of the labyrinth o': the inner ear. Project
MR005.13-6001 Subtask 1, Report No. 41. Pensacola, Fla.: Naval School
of Aviation Medicine, 1956.
5. Haggard, E., and Rose, G., Somgeffects of mental set and active participation in
the conditioning of the autok.netic phenomenon. J. exper. Psychoi., 34:
45-59, 1944.
6. Kyistra, J., Autokinesia. Aerometica Acta, 5:261-270t 1956/1957.
7. Sexton, M., The autoklnetlc test: its value in psychiatric diagnosis and prognosis.
Amer. J. Psychlat., 102: 399-402, 1945.
8. Sherlf_ M., and Cantril, H°, The Psychology of Ego-Involvements. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 19--_r7°
9. SoIoyanis, G., and Corso, J., The effects of soundon autokinet|c movement.
WADC Technical Report 53-447. Wrlght-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio:
Wright Air Development Center, 1953.
10. Voth, A.t Individual differences in the autokinetlc phenomenon. J. exper.
Psychol., 29: 306-322, 1941.
!0
1965026831-013


Comparison of autokinetic movement perceived by normal persons and deaf subjects with bilateral labyrinthine defects

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server