Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 228, Issue 1, pp 117–129 | Cite as

Decreasing perceived optic flow rigidity increases postural sway

  • Vivian HoltenEmail author
  • Stella F. Donker
  • Frans A. J. Verstraten
  • Maarten J. van der Smagt
Research Article

Abstract

Optic flow simulating self-motion through the environment can induce postural adjustments in observers. Some studies investigating this phenomenon have used optic flow patterns increasing in speed from center to periphery, whereas others used optic flow patterns with a constant speed. However, altering the speed gradient of an optic flow stimulus changes the perceived rigidity of such a stimulus. Optic flow stimuli that are perceived as rigid can be expected to provide a stronger sensation of self-motion than non-rigid optic flow, and this may well be reflected in the amount of postural sway. The current study, therefore, examined, by manipulating the speed gradient, to what extent the rigidity of an optic flow stimulus influences posture along the anterior–posterior axis. We used radial random dot expanding or contracting optic flow patterns with three different speed profiles (single-speed, linear speed gradient or quadratic speed gradient) that differentially induce the sensation of self-motion. Interestingly, most postural sway was observed for the non-rigid single-speed optic flow pattern, which contained the least self-motion information of the three profiles. Moreover, we found an anisotropy in that contracting optic flow produced more postural sway than expanding optic flow. In addition, the amount of postural sway increased with increasing stimulus speed, but for contracting optic flow only. Taken together, the results of the current study support the view that visual and sensorimotor systems appear to be tailored toward compensating for rigid optic flow stimulation.

Keywords

Optic flow rigidity Postural sway Self-motion Electromyography 

Supplementary material

Example movie of an expanding single-speed optic flow pattern containing a constant angular speed, resulting in the visual percept of which the center appears to move faster than the periphery. Note that the speed of the optic flow stimulus is different than in the experiment, since in the experiment the stimulus subtended 87° by 56°. (MPG 7762 kb)

Example movie of an expanding optic flow pattern containing a linear speed gradient, simulating the motion of a fronto-parallel plane toward the observer. Note that the speed of the optic flow stimulus is different than in the experiment, since in the experiment the stimulus subtended 87° by 56° (MPG 7442 kb)

Example movie of an expanding optic flow pattern containing a quadratic speed gradient, simulating observer movement through a circular tunnel. Note that the speed of the optic flow stimulus is different than in the experiment, since in the experiment the stimulus subtended 87° by 56° (MPG 6428 kb)

References

  1. Andersen GJ, Dyre BP (1989) Spatial orientation from optic flow in the central visual field. Percept Psychophys 45(4):453–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bronstein AM (1986) Suppression of visually evoked postural responses. Exp Brain Res 63(3):655–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bubka A, Bonato F, Palmisano S (2008) Expanding and contracting optic-flow patterns and vection. Perception 37(5):704–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Bruyn B, Orban GA (1990) The importance of velocity gradients in the perception of three-dimensional rigidity. Perception 19(1):21–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards M, Badcock DR (1993) Asymmetries in the sensitivity to motion in depth: a centripetal bias. Perception 22(9):1013–1023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards M, Ibbotson MR (2007) Relative sensitivities to large-field optic-flow patterns varying in direction and speed. Perception 36(1):113–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards M, O’Mahony S, Ibbotson MR, Kohlhagen S (2010) Vestibular stimulation affects optic-flow sensitivity. Perception 39(10):1303–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eklund G, Lofstedt L (1970) Biomechanical analysis of balance. Biomed Eng (NY) 5:333–337Google Scholar
  9. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Gielen CCAM, van Asten WNJC (1990) Postural responses to simulated moving environments are not invariant for the direction of gaze. Exp Brain Res 79:167–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Held R (1961) Exposure-history as a factor in maintaining stability of perception and coordination. J Nerv Ment Dis 132:26–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Koenderink JJ (1986) Optic flow. Vision Res 26(1):161–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee DN (1980) The optic flow field: the foundation of vision. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 290:169–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee DN, Aronson E (1974) Visual proprioceptive control of standing in human infants. Percept Psychophys 15(3):529–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lestienne F, Soechting J, Berthoz A (1977) Postural readjustments induced by linear motion of visual scenes. Exp Brain Res 28(3–4):363–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lishman JR, Lee DN (1973) The autonomy of visual kinaesthesis. Perception 2(3):287–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Masson G, Mestre DR, Pailhous J (1995) Effects of the spatio-temporal structure of optical flow on postural readjustments in man. Exp Brain Res 103(1):137–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakamura S (2010) Additional oscillation can facilitate visually induced self-motion perception: the effects of its coherence and amplitude gradient. Perception 39:320–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Palmisano S, Pinniger GJ, Ash A, Steele JR (2009) Effects of simulated viewpoint jitter on visually induced postural sway. Perception 38(3):442–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Palmisano S, Kim J, Freeman TC (2012) Horizontal fixation point oscillation and simulated viewpoint oscillation both increase vection in depth. J Vis 12(12):15. doi: 10.1167/12.12.15 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peterka RJ, Benolken MS (1995) Role of somatosensory and vestibular cues in attenuating visually induced human postural sway. Exp Brain Res 105(1):101–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schiff W, Caviness JA, Gibson JJ (1962) Persistent fear responses in rhesus monkeys to the optical stimulus of “looming”. Science 136(3520):982–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shirai N, Birtles D, Wattam-Bell J, Yamaguchi MK, Kanazawa S, Atkinson J, Braddick O (2009) Asymmetrical cortical processing of radial expansion/contraction in infants and adults. Dev Sci 12(6):946–955. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00839.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stoffregen TA (1986) The role of optical velocity in the control of stance. Percept Psychophys 39(5):355–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Todd J (1982) Visual information about rigid and nonrigid motion: a geometric analysis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 8(2):238–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Warren WH Jr, Hannon DJ (1988) Direction of self-motion is perceived from optical flow. Nature 336(6195):162–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wei K, Stevenson IH, Kording KP (2010) The uncertainty associated with visual flow fields and their influence on postural sway: Weber’s law suffices to explain the nonlinearity of vection. J Vis 10(14):4. doi: 10.1167/10.14.4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivian Holten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stella F. Donker
    • 1
  • Frans A. J. Verstraten
    • 2
  • Maarten J. van der Smagt
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz InstituteUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of PsychologyThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations