Visual illusion in virtual world alters women’s target-directed walking

In this study we investigated whether a visual illusion located in far space alters a person’s open-loop, target-directed walking path in the same manner as it alters the perception of the target’s position. Through the use of immersive VR the subject was able to walk physically to the location of a target embedded in a scene that was manipulated to create a visual illusion, known as the induced Roelofs effect. This illusion has been shown to alter the perception of a target’s position. The experiment consisted of two tasks: a perception task and an action task. In the perception task, subjects viewed the scene for 1 s, it disappeared, and they were to report the target’s location verbally. The results showed that the visual illusion altered the reported positions in all but one subject. In the action task, subjects viewed the scene for 1 s, it disappeared, and the subjects were asked to walk to the target’s location. The results showed that the illusion significantly altered the walking paths of most of the women and less than half of the men. A significant gender effect was observed; women’s walking paths deviated, on average, by 7.1° and men’s, by only 2.0°. These results indicate that action tasks in far space are susceptible to the effects of visual illusions, unlike the action tasks in near space that reportedly have been resistant to them. Furthermore, the significant gender effect suggests that men and women either have different strategies and/or employ different mechanisms when executing a visually guided task in far space.

[1]  H. Werner,et al.  Experiments on sensory-tonic field theory of perception. VI. Effect of position of head, eyes, and of object on position of the apparent median plane. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  A. Cowey,et al.  Visual field defects after frontal eye-field lesions in monkeys. , 1971, Brain research.

[3]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  M. Linn,et al.  Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. , 1985, Child development.

[5]  G Rizzolatti,et al.  Functional organization of inferior area 6. , 1987, Ciba Foundation symposium.

[6]  Richard A. Andersen,et al.  A back-propagation programmed network that simulates response properties of a subset of posterior parietal neurons , 1988, Nature.

[7]  Kenneth M. Heilman,et al.  Attention to near and far space: The third dichotomy , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  F. Previc Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  J. Marshall,et al.  Left neglect for near but not far space in man , 1991, Nature.

[10]  L. Stark,et al.  Ocular proprioception and efference copy in registering visual direction , 1991, Vision Research.

[11]  L. Jakobson,et al.  A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them , 1991, Nature.

[12]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  Perception and action in 'visual form agnosia'. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[13]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[14]  M. Goldberg,et al.  Ventral intraparietal area of the macaque: anatomic location and visual response properties. , 1993, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  A. Cowey,et al.  Left visuo-spatial neglect can be worse in far than in near space , 1994, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  C. Gross,et al.  Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. , 1994, Science.

[17]  Susan D. Voyer,et al.  Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Coding of peripersonal space in inferior premotor cortex (area F4). , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  M. Goldberg,et al.  Visual, presaccadic, and cognitive activation of single neurons in monkey lateral intraparietal area. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[20]  S. Chieffi,et al.  Visual illusion and action , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Interaction of cognitive and sensorimotor maps of visual space , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  F. Bremmer,et al.  Spatial invarianceof visual receptivefields inparietal cortexneurons , 1997 .

[23]  J. M. Dabbs,et al.  Spatial Ability, Navigation Strategy, and Geographic Knowledge Among Men and Women , 1998 .

[24]  Julie M. Harris,et al.  Guidance of locomotion on foot uses perceived target location rather than optic flow , 1998, Current Biology.

[25]  S. Huettel,et al.  Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. , 1998, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[26]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  A cortical representation of the local visual environment , 1998, Nature.

[27]  T Landis,et al.  Near and far visual space in unilateral neglect , 1998, Annals of neurology.

[28]  Albert Postma,et al.  Sex Differences in Object Location Memory , 1998, Brain and Cognition.

[29]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The Effect of Pictorial Illusion on Prehension and Perception , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  A. Berthoz,et al.  Multisensory integration in spatial orientation , 1999, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[31]  S. Asfour,et al.  Discrete wavelet transform: a tool in smoothing kinematic data. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[32]  A. Wunderlich,et al.  Brain activation during human navigation: gender-different neural networks as substrate of performance , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[33]  K. Zilles,et al.  Neural consequences of acting in near versus far space: a physiological basis for clinical dissociations. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[34]  Pierluigi Zoccolotti,et al.  Influence of the radial and vertical dimensions on lateral neglect , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  Bruce Bridgeman,et al.  Processing spatial information in the sensorimotor branch of the visual system , 2000, Vision Research.

[36]  Nicola Smania,et al.  Coding of far and near space during walking in neglect patients. , 2002, Neuropsychology.

[37]  M. L. Collaer,et al.  Large Visuospatial Sex Difference in Line Judgment: Possible Role of Attentional Factors , 2002, Brain and Cognition.

[38]  Francesco Lacquaniti,et al.  Cognitive allocentric representations of visual space shape pointing errors , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[39]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Are the original Roelofs effect and the induced Roelofs effect caused by the same shift in straight ahead? , 2002, Vision Research.

[40]  Y Rossetti,et al.  Vision for spatial perception and vision for action: a dissociation between the left–right and near–far dimensions , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[41]  Bruce Bridgeman,et al.  The induced Roelofs effect: two visual systems or the shift of a single reference frame? , 2004, Vision Research.

[42]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey , 1988, Experimental Brain Research.

[43]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[44]  J. Hyvärinen,et al.  I. Functional properties of neurons in lateral part of associative area 7 in awake monkeys , 1979, Experimental Brain Research.