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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Induced self-motion in central vision

Previous research on visually induced self-motion found that stimulation of the central visual field (up to 30 degrees in diameter) results in perceived object motion while self-motion requires peripheral stimulation. In the present study, perceived self-motion was induced with a radially expanding pattern simulating observer motion through a space filled with dots, with visual angles of 7.5 degrees, 10.6 degrees, 15 degrees, and 21.2 degrees. Speed and texture density were also varied. The duration of reported self-motion (a) decreased with increased speed, (b) failed to increase with increased visual angle, and (c) decreased with visual angle at the highest speed level. In a second experiment, subjects rated the perceived depth of the displays. The speed and speed/area interaction effects on judged depth matched those found for induced self-motion. These results suggest an extension of the focal/ambient theory: In addition to a more primitive ambient processing mode that requires peripheral vision, there is a higher level system concerned with ambient processing that functions in the central visual field and uses more complex stimulus information, such as internal depth represented in a radially expanding pattern.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Properties of curvilinear vection

Approximately linear relationships were observed between contrast, spatial frequency, temporal frequency, or velocity of stimulation and perceived velocity of curvilinear vection—that is, a visually induced self-motion in a curved path. Similarly, linear relationships were also found between the perceived degree of curvature of curvilinear vection and spatial frequency or velocity of stimulation. Since the perceived velocity of curvilinear vection varies with contrast, spatial frequency, temporal frequency, and angular velocity, and the perceived degree of curvature of curvilinear vection varies only with spatial frequency and angular velocity, peripheral vision is not sufficient for computing accurately the curvilinear component of induced self-motion in a curved path. Concurrently, it was shown that the perceived direction of curvilinear vection is not always unambiguously perceived (Sauvan & Bonnet, 1989). Consequently, it is suggested that two different types of visual processing, which involve the peripheral or the central vision, underlie the processing of curvilinear 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).     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Spatial orientation from optic flow in the central visual field

Previous research has shown that stimulation of the central visual field with radial flow patterns (produced by forward motion) can induce perceived self-motion, but has failed to demonstrate effects on postural stability of either radial flow patterns or lamellar flow patterns (produced by horizontal translation) in the central visual field. The present study examined the effects of lamellar and radial flow on postural stability when stimulation was restricted to the central visual field. Displays simulating observer motion through a volume of randomly positioned points were observed binocularly through a window that limited the field of view to 15 degrees. The velocity of each display varied according to the sum of four sine functions of prime frequencies. Changes in posture were used to measure changes in perceived spatial orientation. A frequency analysis of postural sway indicated that increased sway occurred at the frequencies of motion simulated in the display for both lamellar and radial flow. These results suggest that both radial and lamellar optic flow are effective for determining spatial orientation when stimulation is limited to the central visual field.     

Jitter and size effects on vection are immune to experimental instructions and demands

Both coherent perspective jitter and explicit changing-size cues have been shown to improve the vection induced by radially expanding optic flow. We examined whether these stimulus-based vection advantages could be modified by altering cognitions and/or expectations about both the likelihood of self-motion perception and the purpose of the experiment. In the main experiment, participants were randomly assigned into two groups-one where the cognitive conditions biased participants towards self-motion perception and another where the cognitive conditions biased them towards object-motion perception. Contrary to earlier findings by Lepecq et al (1995 Perception 24 435-449), we found that identical visual displays were less likely to induce vection in 'object-motion-bias' conditions than in 'self-motion bias' conditions. However, significant jitter and size advantages for vection were still found in both cognitive conditions (cognitive bias effects were greatest for non-jittering same-size control displays). The current results suggest that if a sufficiently large vection advantage can be produced when participants are expecting to experience self-motion, it is likely to persist in object-motion-bias conditions.     

Inertial acceleration as a measure of linear vection: An alternative to magnitude estimation

The present study focused on the development of a procedure to assess perceived self-motion induced by visual surround motion—vection. Using an apparatus that permitted independent control of visual and inertial stimuli, prone observers were translated along their headx-axis (fore/aft). The observers’ task was to report the direction of self-motion during passive forward and backward translations of their bodies coupled with exposure to various visual surround conditions. The proportion of “forward” responses was used to calculate each observer’s point of subjective equality (PSE) for each surround condition. The results showed that the moving visual stimulus produced a significant shift in the PSE when data from the moving surround condition were compared with the stationary surround and no-vision condition. Further, the results indicated that vection increased monotonically with surround velocities between 4 and 40°/sec. It was concluded that linear vection can be measured in terms of changes in the amplitude of whole-body inertial acceleration required to elicit equivalent numbers of “forward” and “backward” self-motion reports.