Processing of visual motion direction in the fronto-parallel plane in the stationary or moving observer

The impact of visually simulated self-motion on predicting object motion

To interact successfully with moving objects in our environment we need to be able to predict their behavior. Predicting the position of a moving object requires an estimate of its velocity. When flow parsing during self-motion is incomplete-that is, when some of the retinal motion created by self-motion is incorrectly attributed to object motion-object velocity estimates become biased. Further, the process of flow parsing should add noise and lead to object velocity judgements being more variable during self-motion. Biases and lowered precision in velocity estimation should then translate to biases and lowered precision in motion extrapolation. We investigated this relationship between self-motion, velocity estimation and motion extrapolation with two tasks performed in a realistic virtual reality (VR) environment: first, participants were shown a ball moving laterally which disappeared after a certain time. They then indicated by button press when they thought the ball would have hit a target rectangle positioned in the environment. While the ball was visible, participants sometimes experienced simultaneous visual lateral self-motion in either the same or in the opposite direction of the ball. The second task was a two-interval forced choice task in which participants judged which of two motions was faster: in one interval they saw the same ball they observed in the first task while in the other they saw a ball cloud whose speed was controlled by a PEST staircase. While observing the single ball, they were again moved visually either in the same or opposite direction as the ball or they remained static. We found the expected biases in estimated time-to-contact, while for the speed estimation task, this was only the case when the ball and observer were moving in opposite directions. Our hypotheses regarding precision were largely unsupported by the data. Overall, we draw several conclusions from this experiment: first, incomplete flow parsing can affect motion prediction. Further, it suggests that time-to-contact estimation and speed judgements are determined by partially different mechanisms. Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, there appear to be certain compensatory mechanisms at play that allow for much higher-than-expected precision when observers are experiencing self-motion-even when self-motion is simulated only visually.

The impact of visually simulated self-motion on predicting object motion-A registered report protocol

To interact successfully with moving objects in our environment we need to be able to predict their behavior. Predicting the position of a moving object requires an estimate of its velocity. When flow parsing during self-motion is incomplete-that is, when some of the retinal motion created by self-motion is incorrectly attributed to object motion-object velocity estimates become biased. Further, the process of flow parsing should add noise and lead to object velocity judgements being more variable during self-motion. Biases and lowered precision in velocity estimation should then translate to biases and lowered precision in motion extrapolation. We investigate this relationship between self-motion, velocity estimation and motion extrapolation with two tasks performed in a realistic virtual reality (VR) environment: first, participants are shown a ball moving laterally which disappears after a certain time. They then indicate by button press when they think the ball would have hit a target rectangle positioned in the environment. While the ball is visible, participants sometimes experience simultaneous visual lateral self-motion in either the same or in the opposite direction of the ball. The second task is a two-interval forced choice task in which participants judge which of two motions is faster: in one interval they see the same ball they observed in the first task while in the other they see a ball cloud whose speed is controlled by a PEST staircase. While observing the single ball, they are again moved visually either in the same or opposite direction as the ball or they remain static. We expect participants to overestimate the speed of a ball that moves opposite to their simulated self-motion (speed estimation task), which should then lead them to underestimate the time it takes the ball to reach the target rectangle (prediction task). Seeing the ball during visually simulated self-motion should increase variability in both tasks. We expect to find performance in both tasks to be correlated, both in accuracy and precision.

Object speed perception during lateral visual self-motion

Judging object speed during observer self-motion requires disambiguating retinal stimulation from two sources: self-motion and object motion. According to the Flow Parsing hypothesis, observers estimate their own motion, then subtract the retinal corresponding motion from the total retinal stimulation and interpret the remaining stimulation as pertaining to object motion. Subtracting noisier self-motion information from retinal input should lead to a decrease in precision. Furthermore, when self-motion is only simulated visually, self-motion is likely to be underestimated, yielding an overestimation of target speed when target and observer move in opposite directions and an underestimation when they move in the same direction. We tested this hypothesis with a two-alternative forced-choice task in which participants judged which of two motions, presented in an immersive 3D environment, was faster. One motion interval contained a ball cloud whose speed was selected dynamically according to a PEST staircase, while the other contained one big target travelling laterally at a fixed speed. While viewing the big target, participants were either static or experienced visually simulated lateral self-motion in the same or opposite direction of the target. Participants were not significantly biased in either motion profile, and precision was only significantly lower when participants moved visually in the direction opposite to the target. We conclude that, when immersed in an ecologically valid 3D environment with rich self-motion cues, participants perceive an object's speed accurately at a small precision cost, even when self-motion is simulated only visually.

Functional neuroimaging of visuo-vestibular interaction

The brain combines visual, vestibular and proprioceptive information to distinguish between self- and world motion. Often these signals are complementary and indicate that the individual is moving or stationary with respect to the surroundings. However, conflicting visual motion and vestibular cues can lead to ambiguous or false sensations of motion. In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to explore human brain activation when visual and vestibular cues were either complementary or in conflict. We combined a horizontally moving optokinetic stimulus with caloric irrigation of the right ear to produce conditions where the vestibular activation and visual motion indicated the same (congruent) or opposite directions of self-motion (incongruent). Visuo-vestibular conflict was associated with increased activation in a network of brain regions including posterior insular and transverse temporal areas, cerebellar tonsil, cingulate and medial frontal gyri. In the congruent condition, there was increased activation in primary and secondary visual cortex. These findings suggest that when sensory information regarding self-motion is contradictory, there is preferential activation of multisensory vestibular areas to resolve this ambiguity. When cues are congruent, there is a bias towards visual cortical activation. The data support the view that a network of brain areas including the posterior insular cortex may play an important role in integrating and disambiguating visual and vestibular cues.

Vestibular and visual responses in human posterior insular cortex

The central hub of the cortical vestibular network in humans is likely localized in the region of posterior lateral sulcus. An area characterized by responsiveness to visual motion has previously been described at a similar location and named posterior insular cortex (PIC). Currently it is not known whether PIC processes vestibular information as well. We localized PIC using visual motion stimulation in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and investigated whether PIC also responds to vestibular stimuli. To this end, we designed an MRI-compatible caloric stimulation device that allowed us to stimulate bithermally with hot temperature in one ear and simultaneously cold temperature in the other or with warm temperatures in both ears for baseline. During each trial, participants indicated the presence or absence of self-motion sensations. We found activation in PIC during periods of self motion when vestibular stimulation was carried out with minimal visual input. In combined visual-vestibular stimulation area PIC was activated in a similar fashion during congruent and incongruent stimulation conditions. Our results show that PIC not only responds to visual motion but also to vestibular stimuli related to the sensation of self motion. We suggest that PIC is part of the cortical vestibular network and plays a role in the integration of visual and vestibular stimuli for the perception of self motion.

Bias to experience approaching motion in a three-dimensional virtual environment

We used two-frame apparent motion in a three-dimensional virtual environment to test whether observers had biases to experience approaching or receding motion in depth. Observers viewed a tunnel of tiles receding in depth, that moved ambiguously either toward or away from them. We found that observers exhibited biases to experience approaching motion. The strengths of the biases were decreased when stimuli pointed away, but size of the display screen had no effect. Tests with diamond-shaped tiles that varied in the degree of pointing asymmetry resulted in a linear trend in which the bias was strongest for stimuli pointing toward the viewer, and weakest for stimuli pointing away. We show that the overall bias to experience approaching motion is consistent with a computational strategy of matching corresponding features between adjacent foreshortened stimuli in consecutive visual frames. We conclude that there are both adaptational and geometric reasons to favor the experience of approaching motion.

Velocity not acceleration of self-motion mediates vestibular-visual interaction

We investigated the influence of vestibular stimulation with different angular accelerations and velocities on the perception of visual motion direction. Constant accelerations resulting in different angular velocities and constant angular velocities obtained at different accelerations were combined in twenty healthy subjects. Random-dot kinematograms with coherently moving pixels and randomly moving pixels were used as visual stimuli during whole-body rotations. The smallest percentage of coherently moving pixels leading to a clear perception of motion direction was taken as the perception threshold. Perception thresholds significantly increased with increasing angular velocity. Increased acceleration, however, had no significant effect on the perception thresholds. We conclude that the achieved angular velocity, and not acceleration, is the predominant factor in the processing of vestibular-visual interaction.

Perception of direction of visual motion. I. Influence of angular body acceleration and tilt

We investigated, psychophysically, the influence of body rotation on visual motion direction thresholds for both upright sitting and tilted observers. Four angular accelerations (0, 20, 40 and 60 degrees/s2) were combined with 3 concurrent backward-tilt positions (0, 45 and 90 degrees). This led to combined stimulation of the semicircular canals and otoliths. Vestibular stimulation was combined with a visual motion stimulus. Random-dot kinematograms in which varying percentages of pixels coherently moving to the left were presented upon a background of otherwise randomly moving pixels (random walk). The smallest percentage of coherently moving pixels leading to a clear perception of motion direction represented as the perceptual threshold. Angular accelerations about the longitudinal body axis significantly increased motion-direction thresholds. Concurrent backward tilt did not influence thresholds. These results differ from those of studies in which translational linear acceleration was employed. Our results support the view that it is necessary to distinguish between linear acceleration caused by gravitational forces and that caused by additional linear accelerations about the x-, y-, and z-axes.

Perception of direction of visual motion. II. Influence of linear body acceleration

We investigated whether linear whole-body acceleration along the interaural y-axis influenced the concurrent perception of visual motion direction as has been shown for angular accelerations. A sled running on air bearings along a 7.5-m track was used to accelerate 18 subjects at two different linear accelerations. These young, healthy volunteers, aged 25.50 +/- 7.38 years, used a joystick to indicate whether or not they perceived visual motion to the left within a random-dot kinematogram continuously presented on a monitor moving with them. The percentage of coherently leftward moving pixels presented for a 640-ms period during acceleration was adjusted according to a Modified Binary Search (MOBS) procedure. Six conditions were tested, two acceleration levels of 1 and 2 m/s2 to both left and right with, at the higher acceleration, two different times of visual motion presentation. Conditions were sequenced by means of a 6 x 6 Latin square balanced for order and carry over. A MANOVA did not show any statistically significant effects either for the independent variables acceleration, velocity, and direction of motion of the sled or for their interactions. The results obtained are in clear contrast to those obtained under rotatory stimulation. We conclude that the otolithic contribution to vestibular-visual motion processing is negligible.