Top-down and multi-modal influences on self-motion perception in virtual reality

INTRODUCTION: Much of the work on self-motion perception and simulation has investigated the contribution of physical stimulus properties (so-called “bottom-up” factors). This paper provides an overview of recent experiments demonstrating that illusory self-motion perception can also benefit from “top-down” mechanisms, e.g. expectations, the interpretation and meaning associated with the stimulus, and the resulting spatial presence in the simulated environment. METHODS: Several VR setups were used as a means to independently control different sensory modalities, thus allowing for well-controlled and reproducible psychophysical experiments. Illusory self-motion perception (vection) was induced using rotating visual or binaural auditory stimuli, presented via a curved projection screen (FOV: 54x40.5°) or headphones, respectively. Additional vibrations, subsonic sound, or cognitive frameworks were applied in some trials. Vection was quantified in terms of onset time, intensity, and convincingness ratings. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: Auditory vection studies showed that sound sources participants associated with stationary “acoustic landmarks” (e.g., a fountain) can significantly increase the effectiveness of the self-motion illusion, as compared to sound sources that are typically associated to moving objects (like the sound of footsteps). A similar top-down effect was observed in a visual vection experiment: Showing a rotating naturalistic scene in VR improved vection considerably compared to scrambled versions of the same scene. Hence, the possibility to interpret the stimulus as a stationary reference frame seems to enhance the self-motion perception, which challenges the prevailing opinion that self-motion perception is primarily bottom-up driven. Even the mere knowledge that one might potentially be moved physically increased the convincingness of the self-motion illusion significantly, especially when additional vibrations supported the interpretation that one was really moving. CONCLUSIONS: Various topdown mechanisms were shown to increase the effectiveness of self-motion simulations in VR, even though they have received little attention in the literature up to now. Thus, we posit that a perceptually-oriented approach that combines both bottom-up and top-down factors will ultimately enable us to optimize self-motion simulations in terms of both effectiveness and costs.

[1]  Desney S. Tan,et al.  With similar visual angles, larger displays improve spatial performance , 2003, CHI '03.

[2]  J. Dichgans,et al.  Visual-Vestibular Interaction: Effects on Self-Motion Perception and Postural Control , 1978 .

[3]  Sarah S. Chance,et al.  Spatial Updating of Self-Position and Orientation During Real, Imagined, and Virtual Locomotion , 1998 .

[4]  Bruce Bridgeman,et al.  Perception & control of self-motion , 1991 .

[5]  Daniel Västfjäll,et al.  Perception of Self-motion and Presence in Auditory Virtual Environments , 2004 .

[6]  Holger Regenbrecht,et al.  The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[7]  Johannes Dichgans,et al.  Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: Linear vs. angular velocity? , 1975 .

[8]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Towards lean and elegant self-motion simulation in virtual reality , 2005, IEEE Proceedings. VR 2005. Virtual Reality, 2005..

[9]  Shuichi Sakamoto,et al.  The effects of linearly moving sound images on self-motion perception , 2004 .

[10]  J. Lackner,et al.  Induction of illusory self-rotation and nystagmus by a rotating sound-field. , 1977, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[11]  Judith Bhurki-Cohen,et al.  Simulator platform motion -- the need revisited , 1998 .

[12]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Locomotion Mode Affects the Updating of Objects Encountered During Travel: The Contribution of Vestibular and Proprioceptive Inputs to Path Integration , 1998, Presence.

[13]  J. Blauert Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization , 1983 .

[14]  M. Braunstein,et al.  Induced self-motion in central vision. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  William W. Gaver How Do We Hear in the World?: Explorations in Ecological Acoustics , 1993 .

[16]  Bernhard E. Riecke,et al.  Embedding presence-related terminology in a logical and functional model , 2002 .

[17]  Stephen Palmisano,et al.  Jitter and Size Effects on Vection are Immune to Experimental Instructions and Demands , 2004, Perception.

[18]  L. Harris,et al.  Visual and non-visual cues in the perception of linear self motion , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Circular vection is facilitated by a consistent photorealistic scene , 2003 .

[20]  Bernhard E. Riecke,et al.  How far can we get with just visual information?: path integration and spatial updating studies in virtual reality , 2003 .

[21]  Bill Kapralos,et al.  Auditory Cues in the Perception of Self Motion , 2004 .

[22]  P. Baudonniere,et al.  Cognitive Effects on Visually Induced Body Motion in Children , 1995, Perception.

[23]  William W. Gaver What in the World Do We Hear? An Ecological Approach to Auditory Event Perception , 1993 .

[24]  F. W. Cody,et al.  Vestibular responses to loud dance music: a physiological basis of the "rock and roll threshold"? , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.