The perception of self-motion induced by central and peripheral visual stimuli moving in opposite directions

The effects of the size of a stimulus and its eccentricity (central or peripheral) on the visually induced perception of horizontal translational self-motion (vection) were investigated. The central and peripheral areas of the observers' visual field were simultaneously stimulated by random dot patterns that moved in opposite directions. The results of two experiments indicated that the effects of central and peripheral presentations of the moving visual pattern are equivalent, and that vection strength is determined by the stimulus size and speed but not by its eccentricity. These results are consistent with the findings of previous studies that suggested that there are no qualitative differences in the vection-inducing potentials of the central and peripheral areas of the visual field, and are counter to the more traditional hypothesis, which has assumed that the perception of self-motion is specifically assigned to peripheral vision.     

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.     

Stimulus eccentricity and spatial frequency interact to determine circular vection.

While early research suggested that peripheral vision dominates the perception of self-motion, subsequent studies found little or no effect of stimulus eccentricity. In contradiction to these broad notions of 'peripheral dominance' and 'eccentricity independence', the present experiments showed that the spatial frequency of optic flow interacts with its eccentricity to determine circular vection magnitude--central stimulation producing the most compelling vection for high-spatial-frequency stimuli and peripheral stimulation producing the most compelling vection for lower-spatial-frequency stimuli. This interaction appeared to be due, in part at least, to the effect that the higher-spatial-frequency moving pattern had on subjects' ability to organise optic flow into related motion about a single axis. For example, far-peripheral exposure to this high-spatial-frequency pattern caused many subjects to organise the optic flow into independent local regions of motion (a situation which clearly favoured the perception of object motion not self-motion). It is concluded that both high-spatial-frequency and low-spatial-frequency mechanisms are involved in the visual perception of self-motion--with their activities depending on the nature and eccentricity of the motion stimulation.     

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.     

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).     

Effect of stationary objects on illusory forward self-motion induced by a looming display

It has previously been shown that when a moving and a stationary display are superimposed, illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is induced only when the moving display appears as the background. Three experiments are reported on the extent to which illusory forward self-motion (forward vection) induced by a looming display is inhibited by a superimposed stationary display as a function of the size and location of the stationary display and of the depth between the stationary and looming displays. Results showed that forward vection was controlled by the display that was perceived as the background, and background stationary displays suppressed forward vection by about the same amount whatever their size and eccentricity. Also, the perception of foreground-background properties of competing displays determined which controlled forward vection, and this control was not tied to specific depth cues. The inhibitory effect of a stationary background on forward vection was, however, weaker than that found with circular vection. This difference makes sense because, for forward body motion, the image of a distant scene is virtually stationary whereas, when the body rotates, it is not.     

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.     

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.     

Vection can be induced without explicit motion signal using backscroll illusion

We demonstrated that vection is induced by a motion stimuli that does not have an explicit, bottom‐up motion component. The stimulus motion used in this experiment was animation movie clips of walking people, with no positional changes within the stimulus field. There were no low‐level motion signals in the direction of gait. The results indicate that strong vection was observed under optimal stimuli conditions, that is, large visual field and multiple walkers. These results suggest that vection can be elicited solely by motion signals extracted at relatively higher levels within the visual system. This is the first report that a pure high‐level motion related to “implied motion” induces vection.     

Circular vection is independent of stimulus eccentricity

The sensation of self-rotation induced by viewing a surround rotating about the observer's vertical axis (circular vection or CV) was investigated with equal-area stimuli located in either the central, the mid-peripheral, or the far-peripheral visual field. Magnitude estimation responses indicated greater CV with larger stimulus area, but no significant differences in CV sensations as a function of stimulus eccentricity. This pattern of results does not support the belief that CV is dominated by peripheral stimulation when equal-area stimuli are compared.     

The role of central and peripheral vision in perceiving the direction of self-motion.

Three experiments were performed to examine the role that central and peripheral vision play in the perception of the direction of translational self-motion, or heading, from optical flow. When the focus of radial outflow was in central vision, heading accuracy was slightly higher with central circular displays (10 degrees-25 degrees diameter) than with peripheral annular displays (40 degrees diameter), indicating that central vision is somewhat more sensitive to this information. Performance dropped rapidly as the eccentricity of the focus of outflow increased, indicating that the periphery does not accurately extract radial flow patterns. Together with recent research on vection and postural adjustments, these results contradict the peripheral dominance hypothesis that peripheral vision is specialized for perception of self-motion. We propose a functional sensitivity hypothesis--that self-motion is perceived on the basis of optical information rather than the retinal locus of stimulation, but that central and peripheral vision are differentially sensitive to the information characteristic of each retinal region.     

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.     

The role of central and peripheral vision in perceiving the direction of self-motion

Three experiments were performed to examine the role that central and peripheral vision play in the perception of the direction of translational self-motion, or heading, from optical flow. When the focus of radial outflow was in central vision, heading accuracy was slightly higher with central circular displays (10°–25° diameter) than with peripheral annular displays (40° diameter), indicating that central vision is somewhat more sensitive to this information. Performance dropped rapidly as the eccentricity of the focus of outflow increased, indicating that the periphery does not accurately extract radial flow patterns. Together with recent research on vection and postural adjustments, these results contradict theperipheral dominance hypothesis that peripheral vision is specialized for perception of self-motion. We propose afunctional sensitivity hypothesis—that. self-motion is perceived on the basis of optical information rather than the retinal locus of stimulation, but that central and peripheral vision are differentially sensitive to the information characteristic of each retinal region.     

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.     

Spatiotemporal boundaries of linear vection

Thresholds for the perception of linear vection were measured. These thresholds allowed us to define the spatiotemporal contrast surface sensitivity and the spatiotemporal domain of the perception of rectilinear vection (a visually induced self-motion in a straight line). Moreover, a Weber’s law was found, such that a mean relative differential threshold in angular velocity of about 41% is necessary to perceive curvilinear vection. This visually induced self-motion corresponds to the sensation of moving in a curved path. It is proposed that curvilinear vection is induced when the apparent velocity difference is detectable. The spatiotemporal domain of perception of rectilinear vection and its spatiotemporal contrast surface sensitivity are centered on low spatial frequencies. Concurrently, the values which correspond to the relative differential thresholds of curvilinear vection are low spatial frequencies. Accordingly, the peripheral ambient visual system seems to be involved in perceiving linear vection. It is argued further that the central ambient system might also be involved in the processing of linear vection.     

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.     

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.     

Coherent modulation of stimulus colour can affect visually induced self-motion perception

The effects of dynamic colour modulation on vection were investigated to examine whether perceived variation of illumination affects self-motion perception. Participants observed expanding optic flow which simulated their forward self-motion. Onset latency, accumulated duration, and estimated magnitude of the self-motion were measured as indices of vection strength. Colour of the dots in the visual stimulus was modulated between white and red (experiment 1), white and grey (experiment 2), and grey and red (experiment 3). The results indicated that coherent colour oscillation in the visual stimulus significantly suppressed the strength of vection, whereas incoherent or static colour modulation did not affect vection. There was no effect of the types of the colour modulation; both achromatic and chromatic modulations turned out to be effective in inhibiting self-motion perception. Moreover, in a situation where the simulated direction of a spotlight was manipulated dynamically, vection strength was also suppressed (experiment 4). These results suggest that observer's perception of illumination is critical for self-motion perception, and rapid variation of perceived illumination would impair the reliabilities of visual information in determining self-motion.     

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.     

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.