There are a few potential mechanisms that can modify such transformation. Induced postural oscillations, when seeing the character apparently leaning forward or away, might be altered perception of vertical position. Distortion of the visual environment alters perception of the body’s vertical orientation within it (Carriot et al. 2008; Keshner and Kenyon 2009). Consequently, it results

in postural reorganization and shifting of the body away from a natural vertical to maintain a correct presentation of Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the visual image on the eye retina. In our study, the environment remained relatively unperturbed. However, the incorrectly oriented body character on the screen might be perceived as an environmental

Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical reference triggering reorganization of the participant’s body alignment to fit with the frame. Deviation from a stability comfort zone due to the body shifting forward or backward could then destabilize posture. Postural destabilization observed in altered viewing conditions could also be due to the conflict between the perceived proximity of the figure and the angle of actual optic axes. Cortical cells responsible for visual motion detection are sensitive Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical to a specific axis of optic signal orientation (Movshon 1990). Distorted vertical presentation of the stimulus (the Mia character) could reduce sensitivity of these neurons and impair their ability to utilize visual stimulus for postural stabilization. This could then result in increased postural oscillations in viewing up and down conditions. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Surprisingly our results revealed only a modest and nonsignificant effect on the COG parameters

when viewing and gaze angles were altered together. We were unable to replicate the findings Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of Buckley et al. (2005) and Fukushima et al. (2008), who showed that coordination of eye–head movements to view a target presented above or below eye level changed stance ground reaction forces. In our study the angular shifts of 25° were smaller than theirs, and so did not require a head movement. Indeed, our selleck compound participants were instructed to keep their head still. Another possible explanation is that TCL the combination of the effects of altering of gaze and viewing angles together resulted in a mutually compensating effect. Limitations of the study This study has some limitations. Although we tried to dissociate the effects of gaze and viewing angles, no eye movements were recorded. We assumed that participants in our study followed instructions and altered eye position in different gaze conditions rather than use head movements. We also studied postural stability in relatively young healthy participants who had small-amplitude body oscillations during quiet stance. Altering the gaze and viewing angle may not have the same effect in individuals with postural control problems.