Fig. 5.
Head orientation in the ranges during fixation of the nine targets during the various task-constrained paradigms of experiment 2. A,Hs surfaces for each of the six tasks, viewed from the side of subject M.C. Shaded regionsreflect the actual data range with each surface fitted with a 40 × 40° range for standardization. CCW, Counterclockwise torsion. B, Quantitative comparison of the gimbal score. Each bar represents the average gimbal score across all seven subjects with SE, for each paradigm (100 sec intervals). *p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference from the control task (↓); two-tailed ttest. C, Quantitative comparison of the torsional thickness score of the head orientation range to the second-order surface. Each bar represents the average torsional thickness score, in degrees, across all seven subjects with SE, for each paradigm (100 sec intervals) with the above designations. *p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference from the control task; two-tailed t test. The surface fits (A) are ordered to follow the logical flow of Results, whereas the quantitative data (B, C) are arranged to document the actual order in which tasks were performed during the experiment.