Perception of smooth and perturbed vection in short-duration microgravity
- 365 Downloads
Successful adaptation to the microgravity environment of space and readaptation to gravity on earth requires recalibration of visual and vestibular signals. Recently, we have shown that adding simulated viewpoint oscillation to visual self-motion displays produces more compelling vection (despite the expected increase in visual-vestibular conflict experienced by stationary observers). Currently, it is unclear what role adaptation to gravity might play in this oscillation-based vection advantage. The vection elicited by optic flow displays simulating either smooth forward motion or forward motion perturbed by viewpoint oscillation was assessed before, during and after microgravity exposure in parabolic flight. During normal 1-g conditions subjects experienced significantly stronger vection for oscillating compared to smooth radial optic flow. The magnitude of this oscillation enhancement was reduced during short-term microgravity exposure, more so for simulated interaural (as opposed to spinal) axis viewpoint oscillation. We also noted a small overall reduction in vection sensitivity post-flight. A supplementary experiment found that 1-g vection responses did not vary significantly across multiple testing sessions. These findings: (i) demonstrate that the oscillation advantage for vection is very stable and repeatable during 1-g conditions and (ii) imply that adaptation or conditioned responses played a role in the post-flight vection reductions. The effects observed in microgravity are discussed in terms of the ecology of terrestrial locomotion and the nature of movement in microgravity.
KeywordsSelf-motion Vision Vection Vestibular Sensory conflict Parabolic flight Perception Optic flow
The authors would like to thank the following for making the microgravity flights possible: Stefanie Ruel, Luchino Cohen, Lorenzo Auriti, Marcus Dejmek, Niken Goswami, all of our subjects, the excellent pilots and support personnel at the National Research Council of Canada microgravity facility, and the staff at the Faculty of Science and Engineering workshops at York University. This research was supported under Canadian Space Agency contract # 9F007-091472.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Supplementary material 1 (MPG 18938 kb)
- Benson AJ (1990) Sensory functions and limitations of the vestibular system. In: Warren R, Wertheim AH (eds) Perception and control of self-motion. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 145–168Google Scholar
- Dichgans J, Brandt T (1978) Visual-vestibular interactions: effects on selfmotion perception and postural control. In: Held R, Leibowitz HW, Teuber HL (eds) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VIII. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp 755–804Google Scholar
- Gibson JJ (1966) The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
- Haber F, Haber H (1950) Possible methods of producing the gravity-free state for medical research. J Aviation Med 21:395–400Google Scholar
- Harm D, Schlegel T (2002) Predicting motion sickness during parabolic flight. Auton Neurosci 97:116–121Google Scholar
- Howard IP (1982) Human visual orientation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- Kornilova LN, Mueller CH, Chernobyl’skii LM (1995) Phenomenology of spatial illusory reactions under conditions of weightlessness. Hum Physiol 21:344–351Google Scholar
- Mach E (1875) Grundlinien der Lehre von den Bewegungsempfindungen (Basic principles for the study of motion perception). Engelmann, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
- Oman CM (1998) Sensory conflict theory and space sickness: our changing perspective. J Vestib Res 8:51–56Google Scholar
- Reason J, Brand JJ (1975) Motion sickness. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Stevens SS (1975) Psychophysics: introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. Transaction Publishers, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Young LR (1993) Space and the vestibular system: what has been learned? J Vestib Res 3:203–206Google Scholar