Perceived self-motion in two visual contexts: dissociable mechanisms underlie perception.

We evaluated the influence of moving visual scenes and knowledge of spatial and physical context on visually induced self-motion perception in an immersive virtual environment. A sinusoidal, vertically oscillating visual stimulus induced perceptions of self-motion that matched changes in visual acceleration. Subjects reported peaks of perceived self-motion in synchrony with peaks of visual acceleration and opposite in direction to visual scene motion. Spatial context was manipulated by testing subjects in the environment that matched the room in the visual scene or by testing them in a separate chamber. Physical context was manipulated by testing the subject while seated in a stable, earth-fixed desk chair or in an apparatus capable of large linear motions, however, in both conditions no actual motion occurred. The compellingness of perceived self-motion was increased significantly when the spatial context matched the visual input and actual body displacement was possible, however, the latency and amplitude of perceived self-motion were unaffected by the spatial or physical context. We propose that two dissociable processes are involved in self-motion perception: one process, primarily driven by visual input, affects vection latency and path integration, the other process, receiving cognitive input, drives the compellingness of perceived self-motion.

[1]  A. Delorme,et al.  Roll, pitch, longitudinal and yaw vection visually induced by optical flow in flight simulation conditions. , 1992, Perceptual and motor skills.

[2]  D M Merfeld,et al.  Humans use internal models to estimate gravity and linear acceleration , 1999, Nature.

[3]  G. Paige,et al.  Eye movement responses to linear head motion in the squirrel monkey. I. Basic characteristics. , 1991, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  B J Frost,et al.  Factors affecting the onset and magnitude of linear vection , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  S. Glasauer,et al.  Subjective somatosensory vertical during dynamic tilt is dependent on task, inertial condition, and multisensory concordance , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  T. Brandt,et al.  Reciprocal inhibitory visual-vestibular interaction. Visual motion stimulation deactivates the parieto-insular vestibular cortex. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  T. Mergner,et al.  Visual object localisation in space , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  J. Gibson The perception of the visual world , 1951 .

[9]  F. Lacquaniti,et al.  Representation of Visual Gravitational Motion in the Human Vestibular Cortex , 2005, Science.

[10]  A. Berthoz,et al.  Perception of linear horizontal self-motion induced by peripheral vision (linearvection) basic characteristics and visual-vestibular interactions , 1975, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  J. Dichgans,et al.  Differential effects of central versus peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception , 1973, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  J. Lackner,et al.  Vertical linear self-motion perception during visual and inertial motion: more than weighted summation of sensory inputs. , 2005, Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation.

[13]  James R. Lackner,et al.  Spatial Orientation as a Component of Presence: Insights Gained from Nonterrestrial Environments , 1998, Presence.

[14]  I. Howard,et al.  Effect of Field Size, Head Motion, and Rotational Velocity on Roll Vection and Illusory Self-Tilt in a Tumbling Room , 1999, Perception.

[15]  G. Johansson Studies on Visual Perception of Locomotion , 1977, Perception.

[16]  W. Warren,et al.  The role of central and peripheral vision in perceiving the direction of self-motion , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  T. Brandt,et al.  The Vestibular Cortex: Its Locations, Functions, and Disorders , 1999, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[18]  T Mergner,et al.  Vestibular-neck interaction and transformation of sensory coordinates. , 1997, Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation.

[19]  J J Gibson,et al.  What gives rise to the perception of motion? , 1968, Psychological review.

[20]  B J Frost,et al.  Linear Vection in the Central Visual Field Facilitated by Kinetic Depth Cues , 1992, Perception.

[21]  Arne D. Ekstrom,et al.  Human hippocampal theta activity during virtual navigation , 2005, Hippocampus.

[22]  Laurence R. Young,et al.  The dynamic contributions of the otolith organs to human ocular torsion , 1996, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  W. Bles,et al.  Cognitive Suppression of Tilt Sensations during Linear Horizontal Self-Motion in the Dark , 2001, Perception.

[24]  J. Lishman,et al.  The Autonomy of Visual Kinaesthesis , 1973, Perception.

[25]  J R Lackner,et al.  Perceived orientation in free-fall depends on visual, postural, and architectural factors. , 1983, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[26]  D E Angelaki,et al.  Three-dimensional organization of otolith-ocular reflexes in rhesus monkeys. III. Responses To translation. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[28]  Arne D. Ekstrom,et al.  Cellular networks underlying human spatial navigation , 2003, Nature.