English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Presenting a large optic flow pattern to observers is likely to cause postural sway. However, directional anisotropies have been reported, in that contracting optic flow induces more postural sway than expanding optic flow. Recently, we showed that the biomechanics of the lower leg cannot account for this anisotropy (Holten, Donker, Verstraten, &amp; van der Smagt, 2013, Experimental Brain Research, 228, 117-129). The question we address in the current study is whether differences in visual processing of optic flow directions, in particular the perceptual strength of these directions, mirrors the anisotropy apparent in postural sway. That is, can contracting optic flow be considered to be a perceptually stronger visual stimulus than expanding optic flow? In the current study we use a breaking continuous flash suppression paradigm where we assume that perceptually stronger visual stimuli will break the flash suppression earlier, making the suppressed optic flow stimulus visible sooner. Surprisingly, our results show the opposite, in that expanding optic flow is detected earlier than contracting optic flow.

Visual Directional Anisotropy Does Not Mirror the Directional Anisotropy Apparent in Postural Sway