April Ash

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 (ie ecological) to generate compelling vection in depth.

Effects of simulated viewpoint jitter on visually induced postural sway

In this study we examined the effects of simulated horizontal and vertical viewpoint jitter on the vection and postural sway induced by radial patterns of optic flow. During each trial, observers were exposed sequentially to 20 s periods of radially expanding flow, radially contracting flow, and static visual scenes. For half the trials, simulated viewpoint jitter was added to the radially expanding/contracting optic flow patterns. In experiment 1, we found that, while this jitter increased the backward postural sway induced by radial expansion, it actually decreased forward postural sway induced by radial contraction. However, in experiment 2 we found that jitter increased both the forward and backward vection induced by radially expanding and contracting flow patterns. We conclude that the processes involved in postural control are more sensitive to the sensory conflicts generated by viewpoint jitter than those involved in the perception of self-motion, and that the observed asymmetries in forward and backward sway are ecological in origin.

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.

Binocular contributions to linear vertical vection.

Compelling illusions of self-motion, known as vection, can be produced in a stationary observer by visual stimulation alone. The role of binocular vision and stereopsis in these illusions was explored in a series of three experiments. Previous research had provided evidence of stereoscopic enhancements for linear vection in depth (e.g., Palmisano, 1996, 2002). Here we examined for the first time the effects of binocular vision and stereopsis on linear vertical vection. Vertical vection was induced by the upward or downward translation of large stereoscopic surfaces. These surfaces were horizontally oriented depth corrugations produced by disparity modulation of patterns of persistent or short lifetime dot elements. We found that binocular viewing of such surfaces significantly increased the magnitudes and decreased the onset delays of vertical vection. Experiments utilizing short lifetime dot stereograms demonstrated that these particular binocular enhancements of vection were due to the motion of stereoscopically defined features.

Pilot gaze and glideslope control

We examined the eye movements of pilots as they carried out simulated aircraft landings under day and night lighting conditions. Our five students and five certified pilots were instructed to quickly achieve and then maintain a constant 3-degree glideslope relative to the runway. However, both groups of pilots were found to make significant glideslope control errors, especially during simulated night approaches. We found that pilot gaze was directed most often toward the runway and to the ground region located immediately in front of the runway, compared to other visual scene features. In general, their gaze was skewed toward the near half of the runway and tended to follow the runway threshold as it moved on the screen. Contrary to expectations, pilot gaze was not consistently directed at the aircrafts simulated aimpoint (i.e., its predicted future touchdown point based on scene motion). However, pilots did tend to fly the aircraft so that this point was aligned with the runway threshold. We conclude that the supplementary out-of-cockpit visual cues available during day landing conditions facilitated glideslope control performance. The available evidence suggests that these supplementary visual cues are acquired through peripheral vision, without the need for active fixation.

Evidence against an ecological explanation of the jitter advantage for vection

Visual-vestibular conflicts have been traditionally used to explain both perceptions of self-motion and experiences of motion sickness. However, sensory conflict theories have been challenged by findings that adding simulated viewpoint jitter to inducing displays enhances (rather than reduces or destroys) visual illusions of self-motion experienced by stationary observers. One possible explanation of this jitter advantage for vection is that jittering optic flows are more ecological than smooth displays. Despite the intuitive appeal of this idea, it has proven difficult to test. Here we compared subjective experiences generated by jittering and smooth radial flows when observers were exposed to either visual-only or multisensory self-motion stimulations. The display jitter (if present) was generated in real-time by updating the virtual computer-graphics camera position to match the observer’s tracked head motions when treadmill walking or walking in place, or was a playback of these head motions when standing still. As expected, the (more naturalistic) treadmill walking and the (less naturalistic) walking in place were found to generate very different physical head jitters. However, contrary to the ecological account of the phenomenon, playbacks of treadmill walking and walking in place display jitter both enhanced visually induced illusions of self-motion to a similar degree (compared to smooth displays).