Cognitive factors can influence self-motion perception (vection) in virtual reality

Abstract

Research on self-motion perception and simulation has traditionally focused on the contribution of physical stimulus properties (“bottom-up factors”) using abstract stimuli. Here, we demonstrate that cognitive (“top-down”) mechanisms like ecological relevance and presence evoked by a virtual environment can also enhance visually induced self-motion illusions (vection). In two experiments, naive observers were asked to rate presence and the onset, intensity, and convincingness of circular vection induced by different rotating visual stimuli presented on a curved projection screen (FOV: 54° × 45°). Globally consistent stimuli depicting a natural 3D scene proved more effective in inducing vection and presence than inconsistent (scrambled) or unnatural (upside-down) stimuli with similar physical stimulus properties. Correlation analyses suggest a direct relationship between spatial presence and vection. We propose that the coherent pictorial depth cues and the spatial reference frame evoked by the naturalistic environment increased the believability of the visual stimulus, such that it was more easily accepted as a stable “scene” with respect to which visual motion is more likely to be judged as self-motion than object motion. This work extends our understanding of mechanisms underlying self-motion perception and might thus help to improve the effectiveness and believability of virtual reality applications.

References

1. Andersen, G. J. and Braunstein, M. L. 1985. Induced self-motion in central vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 11, 2, 122--132.
2. Becker, W., Raab, S., and Jürgens, R. 2002. Circular vection during voluntary suppression of optokinetic reflex. Experimental Brain Research 144, 4 (June), 554--557.
3. Brandt, T., Dichgans, J., and Koenig, E. 1973b. Differential effects of central versus peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception. Experimental Brain Research 16, 476--491.
4. Darlington, C. L. and Smith, P. F. 1998. Further evidence for gender differences in circularvection. Journal of Vestibular Research-Equilibrium & Orientation 8, 2 (Mar.-Apr.), 151--153.
5. Dichgans, J. and Brandt, T. 1978. Visual-vestibular interaction: Effects on self-motion perception and postural control. In Perception, R. Held, H. W. Leibowitz, and H.-L. Teuber, Eds. Handbook of Sensory Physiology, vol. VIII. Springer New York, 756--804.
6. Distler, H. K. 2003. Wahrnehmung in Virtuellen Welten. Ph.D. thesis, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen.
7. Fischer, M. H. and Kornmüller, A. E. 1930. Optokinetisch ausgelöste Bewegungswahrnehmung und optokinetischer Nystagmus {Optokinetically induced motion perception and optokinetic nystagmus}. Journal für Psychologie und Neurologie, 273--308.
8. Fushiki, H., Takata, S., and Watanabe, Y. 2000. Influence of fixation on circular vection. Journal of Vestibular Research-Equilibrium & Orientation 10, 3, 151--155.
9. Hettinger, L. J. 2002. Illusory self-motion in virtual environments. In Handbook of Virtual Environments, K. M. Stanney, Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Hillsdale, NJ, 471--492.
10. Howard, I. P. and Heckmann, T. 1989. Circular vection as a function of the relative sizes, distances, and positions of 2 competing visual-displays. Perception 18, 5, 657--665.
11. Howard, I. P. and Howard, A. 1994. Vection---the contributions of absolute and relative visual motion. Perception 23, 7, 745--751.
12. IJsselsteijn, W. A. 2004. Presence in depth. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Netherland.
13. Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Lilienthal, M. G., Berbaum, K. S., and Lawrence. 1992. Profile analysis of simulator sickness symptoms: Application to virtual environment systems. Presence---Teleoperators and Virtual Environment 1, 3, 295--301.
14. Kennedy, R. S., Hettinger, L. J., Harm, D. L., Ordy, J. M., and Dunlap, W. P. 1996. Psychophysical scaling of circular vection (cv) produced by optokinetic (okn) motion: Individual differences and effects of practice. Journal of Vestibular Research-Equilibrium & Orientation 6, 5 (Sep.-Oct.), 331--341.
15. Kitazaki, M. and Sato, T. 2003. Attentional modulation of self-motion perception. Perception 32, 4, 475--484.
16. Larsson, P., Västfjäll, D., and Kleiner, M. 2004. Perception of self-motion and presence in auditory virtual environments. In Proceedings of Seventh Annual Workshop Presence 2004. 252--258. Available: www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=2953.
17. Lepecq, J. C., Jouen, F., and Dubon, D. 1993. The effect of linear vection on manual aiming at memorized directions of stationary targets. Perception 22, 1, 49--60.
18. Lepecq, J. C., Giannopulu, I., and Baudonniere, P. M. 1995. Cognitive effects on visually induced body motion in children. Perception 24, 4, 435--449.
19. Mach, E. 1875. Grundlinien der Lehre von der Bewegungsempfindung. Engelmann, Leipzig, Germany.
20. Nakamura, S. and Shimojo, S. 1999. Critical role of foreground stimuli in perceiving visually induced self-motion (vection). Perception 28, 7, 893--902.
21. Ohmi, M., Howard, I. P., and Landolt, J. P. 1987. Circular vection as a function of foreground-background relationships. Perception 16, 1, 17--22.
22. Palmisano, S. and Chan, A. Y. C. 2004. Jitter and size effects on vection are immune to experimental instructions and demands. Perception 33, 8, 987--1000.
23. Prothero, J. D. 1998. The role of rest frames in vection, presence and motion sickness. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington. Available: www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-98-11/.
24. Riecke, B. E. and von der Heyde, M. 2002. Qualitative modeling of spatial orientation processes using logical propositions: Interconnecting spatial presence, spatial updating, piloting, and spatial cognition. Tech. Rep. 100, MPI for Biological Cybernetics. Avaliable: www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=2021.
25. Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., Avraamides, M. N., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2004. Enhancing the visually induced self-motion illusion (vection) under natural viewing conditions in virtual reality. In Proceedings of Seventh Annual Workshop Presence 2004. 125--132. Available: www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=2864.
26. Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., Avraamides, M. N., von der Heyde, M., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2005a. Scene consistency and spatial presence increase the sensation of self-motion in virtual reality. In ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization (APGV). La Coruña, Spain. 111--118. Available: www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=3489.
27. Riecke, B. E., Cunningham, D. W., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2006a. Spatial Updating in Virtual Reality: The Sufficiency of Visual Information. Psychological Research. (in press).
28. Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., and Caniard, F. 2006b. Using the perceptually oriented approach to optimize spatial presence & ego-motion simulation. In Handbook of Presence. Lawrence Erlbaum, Assoc. Hillsdate, NJ, submitted. 49--57
29. Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., Caniard, F., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2005b. Influence of Auditory Cues on the visually-induced Self-Motion Illusion (Circular Vection) in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of Eigth Annual Workshop Presence 2005.
30. Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., Caniard, F., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2005c. Towards lean and elegant self-motion simulation in virtual reality. In Proceedings of IEEE VR2005. Bonn, Germany. 131--138.
31. Riecke, B. E., Västfjäll, D., Larsson, P., and Schulte-Pelkum, J. 2005d. Top-down and multi-modal influences on self-motion perception in virtual reality. In Proceedings of HCI international 2005. Las Vegas, NV.
32. Sadowski, W. and Stanney, K. 2002. Presence in virtual environments. In Handbook of Virtual Environments, K. M. Stanney, Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ 791--806.
33. Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., and Regenbrecht, H. 2001. The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence---Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10, 3, 266--281.
34. Schulte-Pelkum, J., Riecke, B. E., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2004. Vibrational cues enhance believability of ego-motion simulation. In International Multisensory Research Forum (IMRF). Available: www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=2766.
35. Tschermak, A. 1931. Optischer raumsinn. In Handbuch der Normalen und Pathologischen Physiologie, A. Bethe, G. Bergmann, G. Embden, and A. Ellinger, Eds. Springer, Berlin, 834--1000.
36. van der Steen, F. A. M. and Brockhoff, P. T. M. 2000. Induction and impairment of saturated yaw and surge vection. Perception & Psychophysics 62, 1 (Jan.), 89--99.
37. Wann, J. and Rushton, S. 1994. The illusion of self-motion in virtual-reality environments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17, 2 (June), 338--340.
38. Wist, E. R., Diener, H. C., Dichgans, J., and Brandt, T. 1975. Perceived distance and perceived speed of self-motion---linear vs angular velocity. Perception & Psychophysics 17, 6, 549--554.
39. Witmer, B. G. and Singer, M. J. 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence---Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 3, 225--240.
40. Wright, W. G., DiZio, P., and Lackner, J. R. 2005. Vertical linear self-motion perception during visual and inertial motion: More than weighted summation of sensory inputs. Journal of Vestibular Research 15, 185--195.
41. Zacharias, G. L. and Young, L. R. 1981. Influence of combined visual and vestibular cues on human perception and control of horizontal rotation. Experimental Brain Research 41, 159--171.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Law, social and behavioral sciences

• Computing methodologies

  • Artificial intelligence

    • Philosophical/theoretical foundations of artificial intelligence

      • Cognitive science

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)