Circular vection as a function of foreground-background relationships

It has previously been reported that illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is most effectively induced by the more distant of two moving displays. Experiments are reported in which the relative effectiveness of two superimposed displays in generating circular vection as a function of (i) the separation in depth between them, (ii) their perceived relative distances, and (iii) which display was in the plane of focus was investigated. Circular vection was governed by the motion of the display that was perceived to be the more distant, even when it was actually nearer. However, actual or perceived distance was found to be not the crucial factor in circular vection because even when the distance between the two displays was virtually zero, vection was controlled by the display perceived to be in the background. When the displays were well separated in depth, vection was not affected by whether the near or the far display was in the plane of focus, nor by which display was fixed or pursued by the eyes.     

Circular vection as a function of the relative sizes, distances, and positions of two competing visual displays

In studies where it is reported that illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is induced more by peripheral displays than by central displays, eccentricity may have been confounded with perceived relative distance and area. Experiments are reported in which the direction and magnitude of vection induced by a central display in the presence of a surround display were measured. The displays varied in relative distance and area and were presented in isolation, with one moving and one stationary display, or with both moving in opposite directions. A more distant display had more influence over vection than a near display. A central display induced vection if seen in isolation or through a 'window' in a stationary surrounding display. Motion of a more distant central display weakened vection induced by a nearer surrounding display moving the other way. When the two displays had the same area their effects almost cancelled. A moving central display nearer than a textured stationary surround produced vection in the same direction as the moving stimulus. This phenomenon is termed 'contrast-motion vecton' because it is probably due to illusory motion of the surround induced by motion of the centre. Unequivocal statements about the dominance of an eccentric display over a central display cannot be made without considering the relative distances and sizes of the displays and the motion contrast between them.     

Induced motion: isolation and dissociation of egocentric and vection-entrained components.

Induced motion (IM) is illusory motion of a stationary test target opposite to the direction of the real motion of the inducing stimulus. We define egocentric IM as an apparent motion of the test target relative to the observer, and vection-entrained IM as an apparent motion of a stationary object along with an apparent motion of the self (vection) induced by the same stimulus. These two forms of IM are often confounded, and tests for distinguishing between them have not been devised. We have devised such tests. Our test for egocentric IM relies on evidence that this form of IM is due mainly to a misregistration of eye movements when optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) is inhibited, and on evidence that OKN is evoked only by stimuli in the plane of convergence. Our test for vection-entrained IM relies on evidence that vection is evoked only by the more distant of two superimposed inducing stimuli. Thus we found egocentric IM to be induced without vection or vection-entrained IM when subjects converged on a foreground moving display with a stationary display in the background, and vection-entrained IM to be induced without egocentric IM when subjects converged on a stationary-foreground display with a moving display in the background. The two types of IM were evoked in opposite directions at the same time when subjects converged on a foreground moving display while a background display moved in the opposite direction. The two forms of IM showed no signs of interaction, and we conclude that they rely on independent motion mechanisms that operate within distinct frames of reference. A control experiment suggested that the depth adjacency effect in IM is determined by the depth adjacency of the inducing stimulus to convergence, not just to the test target.     

Critical role of foreground stimuli in perceiving visually induced self-motion (vection)

The effects of a foreground stimulus on vection (illusory perception of self-motion induced by a moving background stimulus) were examined in two experiments. The experiments reveal that the presentation of a foreground pattern with a moving background stimulus may affect vection. The foreground stimulus facilitated vection strength when it remained stationary or moved slowly in the opposite direction to that of the background stimulus. On the other hand, there was a strong inhibition of vection when the foreground stimulus moved slowly with, or quickly against, the background. These results suggest that foreground stimuli, as well as background stimuli, play an important role in perceiving self-motion.     

Vection in depth during consistent and inconsistent multisensory stimulation

We examined vection induced during physical or simulated head oscillation along either the horizontal or depth axis. In the first two experiments, during active conditions, subjects viewed radial-flow displays which simulated viewpoint oscillation that was either in-phase or out-of-phase with their own tracked head movements. In passive conditions, stationary subjects viewed playbacks of displays generated in earlier active conditions. A third control, experiment was also conducted where physical and simulated fore-aft oscillation was added to a lamellar flow display. Consistent with ecology, when active in-phase horizontal oscillation was added to a radial-flow display it modestly improved vection compared to active out-of-phase and passive conditions. However, when active fore-aft head movements were added to either a radial-flow or a lamellar-flow display, both in-phase and out-of-phase conditions produced very similar vection. Our research shows that consistent multisensory input can enhance the visual perception of self-motion in some situations. However, it is clear that multisensory stimulation does not have to be consistent (i.e., ecological) to generate compelling vection in depth.     

Linear vection in the central visual field facilitated by kinetic depth cues.

Illusory self-motion (vection) is thought to be determined by motion in the peripheral visual field, whereas stimulation of more central retinal areas results in object-motion perception. Recent data suggest that vection can be produced by stimulation of the central visual field provided it is configured as a more distant surface. In this study vection strength (tracking speed, onset latency, and the percentage of trials where vection was experienced) and the direction of self-motion produced by displays moving in the central visual field were investigated. Apparent depth, introduced by using kinetic occlusion information, influenced vection strength. Central displays perceived to be in the background elicited stronger vection than identical displays appearing in the foreground. Further, increasing the eccentricity of these displays from the central retina diminished vection strength. If the central and peripheral displays were moved in opposite directions, vection strength was unaffected, and the direction of vection was determined by motion of the central display on almost half of the trials when the centre was far. Near centres produced fewer centre-consistent responses. A complete understanding of linear vection requires that factors such as display size, retinal locus, and apparent depth plane are considered.     

Inhibition of vection by red

We investigated the effects of colors on vection induction. Expanding optical flows during one’s forward self-motion were simulated by moving dots. The dots and the background were painted in equiluminant red and green. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that vection was weaker when the background was red than when the background was green. In addition, Experiment 3 showed that vection was weaker when the moving dots were red than when the dots were green. Experiment 4 demonstrated that red dots on a red background induced very weak vection, as compared with green dots on a green background. In Experiments 5 and 6, we showed that the present results could not be explained by a luminance artifact. Furthermore, Experiment 7 showed that a moving red grating induced weaker vection than did a green one. We concluded that a red visual stimulus inhibits vection.     

Vection during conflicting multisensory information about the axis, magnitude, and direction of self-motion

We examined the vection induced by consistent and conflicting multisensory information about self-motion. Observers viewed displays simulating constant-velocity self-motion in depth while physically oscillating their heads left-right or back-forth in time with a metronome. Their tracked head movements were either ignored or incorporated directly into the self-motion display (as an added simulated self-acceleration). When this head oscillation was updated into displays, sensory conflict was generated by simulating oscillation along: (i) an orthogonal axis to the head movement; or (ii) the same axis, but in a non-ecological direction. Simulated head oscillation always produced stronger vection than 'no display oscillation'--even when the axis/direction of this display motion was inconsistent with the physical head motion. When head-and-display oscillation occurred along the same axis: (i) consistent (in-phase) horizontal display oscillation produced stronger vection than conflicting (out-of-phase) horizontal display oscillation; however, (ii) consistent and conflicting depth oscillation conditions did not induce significantly different vection. Overall, orthogonal-axis oscillation was found to produce very similar vection to same-axis oscillation. Thus, we conclude that while vection appears to be very robust to sensory conflict, there are situations where sensory consistency improves vection.     

Accelerating self-motion displays produce more compelling vection in depth

We examined the vection in depth induced when simulated random self-accelerations (jitter) and periodic self-accelerations (oscillation) were added to radial expanding optic flow (simulating constant-velocity forward self-motion). Contrary to the predictions of sensory-conflict theory frontal-plane jitter and oscillation were both found to significantly decrease the onsets and increase the speeds of vection in depth. Depth jitter and oscillation had lesser, but still significant, effects on the speed of vection in depth. A control experiment demonstrated that adding global perspective motion which simulated a constant-velocity frontal-plane self-motion had no significant effect on vection in depth induced by the radial component of the optic flow. These results are incompatible with the notion that constant-velocity displays produce optimal vection. Rather, they indicate that displays simulating self-acceleration can often produce more compelling experiences of self-motion in depth.     

Simulated angular head oscillation enhances vection in depth

Research has shown that adding simulated linear head oscillation to radial optic flow displays enhances the illusion of self-motion in depth (ie linear vection). We examined whether this oscillation advantage for vection was due to either the added motion parallax or retinal slip generated by insufficient compensatory eye movement during display oscillation. We constructed radial flow displays which simulated 1 Hz horizontal linear head oscillation (generates motion parallax) or angular head oscillation in yaw (generates no motion parallax). We found that adding simulated angular or linear head oscillation to radial flow increased the strength of linear vection in depth. Neither type of simulated head oscillation significantly reduced vection onset latencies relative to pure radial flow. Simultaneous eye-movement recordings showed that slow-phase ocular following responses (OFRs) were induced in both linear and angular viewpoint oscillation conditions. Vection strength was significantly reduced by active central fixation when viewing displays which simulated angular, but not linear, head oscillation. When these displays with angular oscillation were viewed without stable fixation, vection strength was found to increase with the velocity and regularity of the OFR. We conclude that vection improvements observed during central viewing of displays with angular viewpoint oscillation depend on the generation of eye movements.     

Induced Rotational Motion With Nonabutting Inducing and Induced Stimuli: Implications Regarding Two Forms of Induced Motion

Induced motion is the illusory motion of a static stimulus in the opposite direction to a moving stimulus. Two types of induced motion have been distinguished: (a) when the moving stimulus is distant from the static stimulus and undergoes overall displacement, and (b) when the moving stimulus is pattern viewed within fixed boundaries that abut the static stimulus. Explanations of the 1st type of induced motion refer to mediating phenomena, such as vection, whereas the 2nd type is attributed to local processing by motion-sensitive neurons. The present research was directed to a display that elicited induced rotational motion with the characteristics of both types of induced motion: the moving stimulus lay within fixed boundaries, but the inducing and induced stimuli were distant from each other. The author investigated the properties that distinguished the two types of induced motion. In 3 experiments, induced motion persisted indefinitely, inter-ocular transfer of the aftereffect of induced motion was limited to about 20%, and the time-course of the aftereffect of induced motion could not be attributed to vection. Those results were consistent with fixed-boundary induced motion. However, they could not be explained by local processing. Instead, the results might reflect the detection of object motion within a complex flow-field that resulted from the observer's motion.     

Induced rotational motion with nonabutting inducing and induced stimuli: implications regarding two forms of induced motion

Induced motion is the illusory motion of a static stimulus in the opposite direction to a moving stimulus. Two types of induced motion have been distinguished: (a) when the moving stimulus is distant from the static stimulus and undergoes overall displacement, and (b) when the moving stimulus is pattern viewed within fixed boundaries that abut the static stimulus. Explanations of the 1st type of induced motion refer to mediating phenomena, such as vection, whereas the 2nd type is attributed to local processing by motion-sensitive neurons. The present research was directed to a display that elicited induced rotational motion with the characteristics of both types of induced motion: the moving stimulus lay within fixed boundaries, but the inducing and induced stimuli were distant from each other. The author investigated the properties that distinguished the two types of induced motion. In 3 experiments, induced motion persisted indefinitely, interocular transfer of the aftereffect of induced motion was limited to about 20%, and the time-course of the aftereffect of induced motion could not be attributed to vection. Those results were consistent with fixed-boundary induced motion. However, they could not be explained by local processing. Instead, the results might reflect the detection of object motion within a complex flow-field that resulted from the observer's motion.     

Motion direction distribution as a determinant of circular vection

Visually induced self-translation is called linear vection, while visually induced self-rotation is called circular vection. Impressions of circular vection and linear vection were measured using flow patterns presented on a flat screen. Subjects reported strong circular vection when the flow simulated a projected pattern of a rotating cylinder, which had gradients in speed and direction of moving elements on the screen. When speed gradients in a horizontal dimension were removed while not changing the direction distribution on the screen, strong circular vection was still reported. On the other hand, when the motion direction of all elements was the same (horizontal), having speed gradients, the circular vection was weak. The impression of linear vection showed the opposite trend. This result indicates not a speed distribution pattern but one of a two-dimensional direction on the retina determines the type of vection.     

Con-fusing contours & pieces of glass

We present a new illusory display in which illusory contours are misaligned with physical contours. In these displays, illusory Kanizsa squares, induced by the so-called pacmen, are positioned on top of a background grid of bars. The misalignment of the illusory contours with respect to physical contours of the grid of bars induces an overall 'restless' appearance and evokes the impression that parts of the grid within the illusory square are shifted. To test this impression, we created stimuli in which illusory squares were superimposed on a grid at different positions, where the grid could consist of either straight bars or indented bars. After briefly flashing these stimuli, observers reported indentations of the background grid for those cases in which physical and illusory contours were misaligned. In a control condition, the pacmen were replaced by crosses (not inducing an illusory square) at the same positions; as expected much less illusory shifts were reported in this condition. In a second experiment, we further tested the direction of the perceived shifts, revealing similar trends as in the first experiment and a consistent result with respect to the reported direction of the shifts. We explore and discuss possible underlying mechanisms with regard to our illusory display.     

Attentional modulation of self-motion perception

Attentional effects on self-motion perception (vection) were examined by using a large display in which vertical stripes containing upward or downward moving dots were interleaved to balance the total motion energy for the two directions. The dots moving in the same direction had the same colour, and subjects were asked to attend to one of the two colours. Vection was perceived in the direction opposite to that of non-attended motion. This indicates that non-attended visual motion dominates vection. The attentional effect was then compared with effects of relative depth. Clear attentional effects were again found when there was no relative depth between dots moving in opposite directions, but the effect of depth was much stronger for stimuli with a relative depth. Vection was mainly determined by motion in the far depth plane, although some attentional effects were evident even in this case. These results indicate that attentional modulation for vection exists, but that it is overridden when there is a relative depth between the two motion components.     

Dancing shapes: a comparison of luminance-induced distortions

We present an illusory display in which a grid of outlined squares is positioned in front of a moving luminance gradient. Observers perceive a strong, illusory, 'wavelike' motion of the superimposed squares. We compared luminance effects on dynamic and static aspects of this illusion. The dynamic aspect was investigated by means of a temporal gradient, which induced an illusory pulsing of the outlined squares. The static aspect was investigated in two different ways. In one experiment, the outlined squares were positioned on a spatial gradient, which caused the squares to look like trapezoid shapes. In another experiment, the squares were positioned on different luminance fields, which affected their apparent size. In all experiments, luminance settings were the same, and observers were asked to indicate the direction and strength of the induced distortions. The overall results show large agreements between the dynamic distortion and the first-mentioned static distortion, whereas different tendencies emerged for the second static distortion. In a second series of experiments, we examined these distortions for various ranges of the luminance gradient and for border gradients as well. On the basis of these data, we explored how the directions of the perceived distortions of the single-gradient displays examined in this paper could be related to each other.     

Effects of stimulus eccentricity on vection reevaluated with a binocularly defined depth1

Abstract: The effects of stimulus eccentricity (central or peripheral) on vection (visually induced self‐motion perception) were investigated using a stimulus combination consisting of a static foreground and a moving background, the depths of which were defined by binocular disparity. By using these stimulus settings, the effect of stimulus eccentricity can be assessed without any artifacts in the perceived depth of the stimulus, which would covary with the stimulus eccentricity. The results of this psychophysical experiment indicated that stimulus eccentricity cannot affect the strength of vection, and that both the central and peripheral stimuli can induce self‐motion perception with equal magnitudes if the stimulus sizes are equalized. The present investigation, which used a controlled stimulus depth condition, clearly negated the idea of the peripheral dominance of vection, which has been accepted for a long time.     

Più mosso: Fast self-motion makes cyclic action faster in virtual reality

Visually induced self-motion (vection) affects the speed at which actions are performed.However, it has been unclear whether this speedy action induced by vection is based on the modulation of mental tempo. To clarify this issue, we tested whether the speed of vection influenced an observer's cyclic action related to mental tempo. Observers viewed fast and slow moving optic flow stimuli and dynamic random dots, whilst handclapping at their preferred tempo. The results revealed that the clapping rate was the fastest in the fastest optic flow condition. This effect vanished when optic flow stimuli moved fast but did not induce vection. Fast optic flow stimuli also induced larger pupil dilation, suggesting that it increased the observer's arousal level. These results suggest that illusory self-motion increased arousal levels, thereby modulating mental tempo.     

Effects of gaze on vection from jittering, oscillating, and purely radial optic flow

In this study, we examined the effects of different gaze types (stationary fixation, directed looking, or gaze shifting) and gaze eccentricities (central or peripheral) on the vection induced by jittering, oscillating, and purely radial optic flow. Contrary to proposals of eccentricity independence for vection (e.g., Post, 1988), we found that peripheral directed looking improved vection and peripheral stationary fixation impaired vection induced by purely radial flow (relative to central gaze). Adding simulated horizontal or vertical viewpoint oscillation to radial flow always improved vection, irrespective of whether instructions were to fixate, or look at, the center or periphery of the self-motion display. However, adding simulated high-frequency horizontal or vertical viewpoint jitter was found to increase vection only when central gaze was maintained. In a second experiment, we showed that alternating gaze between the center and periphery of the display also improved vection (relative to stable central gaze), with greater benefits observed for purely radial flow than for horizontally or vertically oscillating radial flow. These results suggest that retinal slip plays an important role in determining the time course and strength of vection. We conclude that how and where one looks in a self-motion display can significantly alter vection by changing the degree of retinal slip.     

Factors affecting the onset and magnitude of linear vection

The role of central and peripheral vision in the production of linear vection was assessed by using displays in which flow structure and sources of internal and external depth information were manipulated. Radial optical flow was more effective for inducing self-motion in both central and peripheral visual fields than was lamellar flow in displays of the same size. The presence of external occlusion information was necessary to induce linear vection when small displays were composed of lamellar flow, whereas the effectiveness of small radial displays did not depend on the availability of occlusion edges.