Comparing the effectiveness of different displays in enhancing illusions of self-movement (vection)

Riecke, Bernhard E.; Jordan, Jacqueline D.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00713

Cited by 43 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, the two displays with the largest FOV—StreetLab and the combination of three screens—resulted in strongest vection ratings overall. Previous research found similar results, showing that a smaller FOV typically reduces the sensation of vection (e.g., Allison et al., 1999; Dichgans & Brandt, 1978; Flanagan et al., 2002; Riecke & Jordan, 2015). The role of visual stimulation of the peripheral and central FOV has been exhaustively discussed in this context (e.g., Berthoz, Pavard, & Young, 1975; Warren & Kurtz, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Display Types on Vection and Its Interaction With Motion Direction and Field Dependence

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illusory self-motion (vection) can be generated by visual stimulation. The purpose of the present study was to compare behavioral vection measures including intensity ratings, duration, and onset time across different visual display types. Participants were exposed to a pattern of alternating black-and-white horizontal or vertical bars that moved either in vertical or horizontal direction, respectively. Stimuli were presented on four types of displays in randomized order: (a) large field of view dome projection, (b) combination of three computer screens, (c) single computer screen, (d) large field of view flat projection screen. A Computer Rod and Frame Test was used to measure field dependence, a cognitive style indicating the person’s tendency to rely on external cues (i.e., field dependent) or internal cues (i.e., field independent) with respect to the perception of one’s body position in space. Results revealed that all four displays successfully generated at least moderately strong vection. However, shortest vection onset, longest vection duration, and strongest vection intensity showed for the dome projection and the combination of three screens. This effect was further pronounced in field independent participants, indicating that field dependence can alter vection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Display Types on Vection and Its Interaction With Motion Direction and Field Dependence

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They reported persistence of vection in the same direction as the adapted one. The problem with subjective reports is that they do not allow quantification of the aftereffect magnitude and may be vulnerable to biases induced by experimental instructions (for a recent comparsion of vection onset latency and strength for 3D and head-mounted displays see Riecke and Jordan, 2015). These findings are highly suggestive but they provide only a subjective measure of aftereffect strength.…”

Section: Visuo-vestibular Crossmodal Aftereffects In Self-motion Percmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory Integration in Self Motion Perception

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self motion perception involves the integration of visual, vestibular, somatosensory and motor signals. This article reviews the findings from single unit electrophysiology, functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging and psychophysics to present an update on how the human and non-human primate brain integrates multisensory information to estimate one’s position and motion in space. The results indicate that there is a network of regions in the non-human primate and human brain that processes self motion cues from the different sense modalities.

show abstract

“…and indirectly by altering the visual scene. For example, in recent research (simulating active pursuit of a target over a ground plane) Riecke and Jordan (2015) found that most subjects reported vection was greater through an HMD than on a 3D tv [37]. Interestingly, the HMD did not appear to be more provocative in terms of generating motion sickness.…”

Section: Relationship Between Vection and Cybersickness In Hmdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early findings (using fixed-based simulators rather than HMDs) suggested that traditional vection might be a prerequisite for visually induced motion sickness in stationary observers [25]. However, while fixed-base simulator studies have often reported positive correlations between vection and visually induced motion sickness [14,[31][32][33], other studies appeared to suggest negative relationships between the two phenomena [34], and still others failed to find significant relationships between them [4,28,[35][36][37].…”

Section: Relationship Between Vection and Cybersickness In Hmdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vection and cybersickness generated by head-and-display motion in the Oculus Rift

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cybersickness is often experienced when viewing virtual environments through head-mounted displays (HMDs). This study examined whether vection (i.e., illusory self-motion) and mismatches between perceived and physical head motions contribute to such adverse experiences. Observers made oscillatory yaw head rotations while viewing stereoscopic optic flow through an Oculus Rift HMD. Vection and cybersickness were measured under 3 conditions of visual compensation for physical head movements: "compensated", "uncompensated", and "inversely compensated". When a nearer aperture was simulated by the HMD, vection was found to be strongest in the "compensated" condition and weakest in the "inversely compensated" condition. However, vection was similar for all 3 conditions during full-field exposures. Cybersickness was most severe for the "inversely compensated" condition, but was not different for the other two conditions. We conclude that mismatches between perceived and physical head-movements can contribute strongly to cybersickness. The relationship between vection and cybersickness is weaker and appears complex. Cybersickness is often experienced when viewing virtual environments through headmounted displays (HMDs). This study examined whether vection (i.e., illusory self-motion) and mismatches between perceived and physical head motions contribute to such adverse experiences. Observers made oscillatory yaw head rotations while viewing stereoscopic optic flow through an Oculus Rift HMD. Vection and cybersickness were measured under 3 conditions of visual compensation for physical head movements: "compensated", "uncompensated", and "inversely compensated". When a nearer aperture was simulated by the HMD, vection was found to be strongest in the "compensated" condition and weakest in the "inversely compensated" condition. However, vection was similar for all 3 conditions during full-field exposures. Cybersickness was most severe for the "inversely compensated" condition, but was not different for the other two conditions. We conclude that mismatches between perceived and physical head-movements can contribute strongly to cybersickness. The relationship between vection and cybersickness is weaker and appears complex.

show abstract

Comparing the effectiveness of different displays in enhancing illusions of self-movement (vection)

Cited by 43 publications

References 47 publications

Effect of Different Display Types on Vection and Its Interaction With Motion Direction and Field Dependence

Effect of Different Display Types on Vection and Its Interaction With Motion Direction and Field Dependence

Multisensory Integration in Self Motion Perception

Vection and cybersickness generated by head-and-display motion in the Oculus Rift

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About