Abstract

Induced rotary movement has been reported to start and stop repeatedly during 1 min of observation. This has been taken as evidence for the involvement either of cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus or of roll vection. Both assertions are dubious. Regarding cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus, available evidence shows that it is too weak to be important in induced rotary movement. Also, induced rotary movement and cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus are affected differently by the velocity of eliciting stimulation. Regarding roll vection, the conditions for its intermittence do not match those for induced rotary movement. Also, although aftereffects for induced rotary movement are negative, those for roll vection are positive and negative. Intermittence in induced rotary movement may be parsimoniously explained as characteristic of a weak effect.