Compound self-motion perception induced by two kinds of optical motion

Two kinds of flow patterns consisting of random dots were presented simultaneously to subjects to investigate whether or not two kinds of vection occur simultaneously. One pattern induces vertical linear self-translation, whereas the other induces self-rotation around a vertical axis (when either pattern is presented alone). Three sets of conditions were tested. The first condition was one in which random dots moved in a summed direction of both flow vectors. In the second condition, both flow patterns were simply overlaid, whereas in the third condition, the two kinds of flow patterns were overlaid with a depth separation produced by binocular disparity. The subjects perceived both kinds of vection simultaneously in directions opposite to those of the corresponding flow components under the first condition, whereas either vection occurred mainly under the second condition. Under the third condition, both of the flows induced each kind of vection simultaneously, despite there being no physical vector summation of dot motion. The background flow induced vection in a direction opposite to the flow direction, whereas the foreground flow induced vection in the same direction as the flow direction. These results show that induced self-translation and induced self-rotation can occur simultaneously in two ways.     

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.     

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.     

Visibility versus accountability in pooling local motion signals into global motion direction

The human observer is surprisingly inaccurate in discriminating proportions between two spatially overlapping sets of randomly distributed elements moving in opposite directions. It was shown that observers took into account an equivalent of 74?% of all moving elements when the task was to estimate their relative number, but only an equivalent of 21?% of the same elements when the task was to discriminate between opposite directions. It was concluded that, in the motion direction discrimination task, a large proportion of the signal from all of the elements was inaccessible to the observers, whereas the majority of the signal was accessible in a numerosity task. This type of perceptual limitation belongs to the attentional blindness category, where a strong sensory signal cannot be noticed when processing is diverted by parallel events. In addition, we found no evidence for the common-fate principle, as the ability to discriminate numerical proportions remained the same, irrespective of whether all estimated elements were moving coherently in one direction or unpredictably in opposite directions.     

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.     

Vection can be induced without global-motion awareness

A new vection illusion is reported. Vection was induced even though there was no consciously perceived global display motion corresponding to the self-motion. The resulting experience can be summarised as: "I feel that I am moving but I do not know why".     

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.     

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.     

Type of motion in inverted self-motion perception induced by a foreground stimulus

Slowly moving foreground induces an illusory self-motion perception in the same direction as its motion direction (inverted vection). In this study, the effects of motion type of the foreground stimulus on inverted vection were investigated using a sample of 3 men and 1 woman. As indices of perceived strength of the inverted vection, duration and estimated magnitude were measured. Analysis of the psychophysical experiment indicated that a translating foreground induced inverted linear vection in the same direction as the stimulus motion. However, a rotating foreground did not induce an inverted roll vection. Statistical analyses indicate that there is a significant difference between two foreground motion conditions (Duration: t3=14.54, p <.01; Estimation: t3=16.92, p<.01). This result supports the hypothesis that eye-movement information is responsible for the occurrence of inverted vection.     

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.     

Motion capture depends on signal strength

When flickering dots are superimposed onto a drifting grating, the dots appear to move coherently with the grating. In this study we examine: (i) how the perceived direction of a compound stimulus composed of superimposed grating and dots, moving in opposite directions with equal speeds, is influenced by the relative strength of the motion signals; (ii) how the perceived speed of a compound stimulus composed of superimposed grating and dots, moving in the same direction but at different speeds, is influenced by the relative strength of the motion signals; and (iii) whether this stimulus is discriminable from its metameric speed match. Dot signal strength was manipulated by using different proportions of signal dots in noise and different dot lifetimes. Both the perceived direction and speed of these compound stimuli depended upon the relative motion-signal strengths of the grating and the dots. Those compound stimuli that appeared coherent were not discriminable from the speed-matched metameric compound stimuli. When the signals were completely integrated into a coherent compound stimulus, the local motion signals were no longer perceptually available, though both contributed to the global percept. These data strongly support a weighted-combination model where the relative weights depend on signal strength, instead of a winner-takes-all model.     

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.     

Does binocular disparity facilitate the detection of transparent motion?

Recent physiological studies have established that cortical cells that are tuned for the direction of motion may also exhibit tuning for binocular disparity. This tuning does not appear to provide any advantage in discriminating the direction of global motion in random-dot kinematograms. Here we investigated the possibility that this tuning may be important in the perception of transparent motion. Random-dot kinematograms were presented which contained coherent motion in a single direction or in two opposing directions. A greater proportion of signal dots was required for the detection of transparent motion than of motion in a single direction. This difference vanished when the two opposite directions of motion were presented with different disparities. These results suggest that the direction of global motion can be computed separately for surfaces which are clearly segregated in depth.     

Expanding and contracting optic-flow patterns and vection

When stationary observers view an optic-flow pattern, visually induced self-motion perception (vection) and a form of motion sickness known as simulator sickness (SS), can result. Previous results suggest that an expanding flow pattern leads to more SS than a contracting pattern. Sensory conflict, a possible cause of SS, may be more salient when an expanding optic-flow pattern is viewed. An experiment was conducted to test if a more salient sensory conflict accompanying expanding flow patterns might inhibit vection. Participants (n = 15) viewed a pattern of blue squares, either steadily expanded or contracted, on a large rear-projection screen. Vection onset and magnitude were measured for 30 s with a computer-interfaced slide device. Vection onset was significantly faster, and vection magnitude stronger, when a contracting pattern was viewed. We propose that our extensive experience with forward self-motion may form a neural expectancy (exposure-history) about the sensory inputs which typically accompany expanding flow. However, since backward self-motion is less common, there may be a weaker exposure-history for contracting flow, and as a result these patterns generate less salient sensory conflict and subsequently less vection.     

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.     

Induced motion of a fixated target: influence of voluntary eye deviation.

Induced motion (IM) was observed in a fixated target in the direction opposite to the real motion of a moving background. Relative to a fixation target located straight ahead, IM decreased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees in the same direction as background motion and increased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees opposite background motion. These results are consistent with a "nystagmus-suppression" hypothesis for subjective motion of fixated targets: the magnitude of illusory motion is correlated with the amount of voluntary efference required to oppose involuntary eye movements that would occur in the absence of fixation. In addition to the form of IM studied, this explanation applies to autokinesis, apparent concomitant motion, and the oculogyral illusion. Accounts of IM that stress visual capture of vection, afferent mechanisms, egocenter deviations, or phenomenological principles, although they may explain some forms of IM, do not account for the present results.     

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.     

Depth separation between foreground and background on visually induced perception of self-motion

A uniformly moving visual pattern can induce observer's self-motion perception in the opposite direction (vection), and an additional static stimulus can modulate (facilitate or inhibit) the strength of it. The present study was designed to investigate the effects of stimulus depth order and the depth distances of the visual stimulus on the inhibition and facilitation of vection caused by the additional static stimulus, measuring duration and estimated magnitude of vection as indices of vection strength. Analysis of this psychophysical experiment with four participants indicated that the static foreground presented in front of the moving pattern can facilitate vection, whereas the static background inhibits it (Duration: F1,3= 12.06, p<.05; Estimation: F1,3= 13.87, p<.05). Furthermore, the depth distances from the observer or the depth separation between the foreground and the background did not affect the self-motion perception (F2,6 < 1.0 for duration and estimation).     

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.     

The aperture problems in the Pulfrich effect

The Pulfrich effect yields a perceived depth for horizontally moving objects but not for vertically moving ones. In this study the Pulfrich effect was measured by translating oblique lines seen through a circular window, which made motion direction ambiguous. Overlaying random dots that moved horizontally, vertically, or diagonally controlled the perceptual motion direction of the lines. In experiment 1, when the lines were seen to move horizontally, the effect was strongest in spite of the same physical motion of the lines. Experiment 2 was performed to test the above conditions again, excluding the Pulfrich effect of the dots on the depth of the lines. The overlaid dots were presented to one eye only. The result showed that the Pulfrich effect of the lines was persistently strong in spite of the perceptual changes in motion direction. Experiment 3 also showed that the Pulfrich depth was independent of the perceived horizontal speed in a plaid display. The Pulfrich effect was determined by measuring the horizontal disparity component, independently of the perceived motion direction. These results demonstrate that the aperture problems in motion and stereopsis in the Pulfrich effect are solved independently.