Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 12, pp 3215–3221 | Cite as

Inhibition of vection by grasping an object

  • Masaki Mori
  • Takeharu Seno
Research Article


The present study investigated whether vection could be modified by an object grasping movement. Twenty-five university students were asked to do one of the following four types of left-hand movements while they were viewing a radial optic flow: (1) grasping the hand-gripper strongly; (2) holding the hand-gripper; (3) clenching fist strongly; and (4) open hand without having anything in their left hands (normal hand condition). The participants’ tasks were to keep pressing a button with their right hands while they were perceiving vection. After each trial, they estimated the subjective strength of vection on a 101-point scale. The result showed that the vection was inhibited by strongly grasping the hand-gripper task more than by the other hand movements. Vection could be weakened by the object grasping movement. It might be suggested that vection could be inhibited by the presence of an object being grasped and also by the grasping movement itself. We speculated that the mechanism underlying this inhibition might be related to cognitive pressure, attentional load, power and muscle tonus, and multisensory and proprioception interactions.


Vection Self-motion perception Grasping movement Inhibition Hand-gripper Optic flow 



We thank Elizabeth Dawes, PhD, from Edanz Group ( for editing a draft of this manuscript. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (Grant Number 16J06224) to MM and for Young Scientists (B) (Grant Numbers 17K12869 and 18H01100) to TS from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. Part of this work was carried out under the Cooperative Research Project Program of the Research Institute of Electrical Communication, Tohoku University.


  1. Arch JJ, Craske MG (2006) Mechanisms of mindfulness: emotion regulation following a focused breathing induction. Behav Res Ther 44:1849–1858. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ash A, Palmisano S, Govan DG, Kim J (2011a) Display lag and gain effects on vection experienced by active observers. Aviat Space Environ Med 82:763–769. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ash A, Palmisano S, Kim J (2011b) Vection in depth during consistent and inconsistent multisensory stimulation. Perception 40:155–174. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ash A, Palmisano S, Apthorp D, Allison RS (2013) Vection in depth during treadmill walking. Perception 42:562–576. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonato F, Bubka A (2006) Chromaticity, spatial complexity, and self-motion perception. Perception 35:53–64. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonato F, Bubka A, Palmisano S, Phillip D, Moreno G (2008) Vection change exacerbates simulator sickness in virtual environments. Presence (Camb) 17:283–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandt T, Dichgans J, Koenig E (1973) Differential effects of central versus peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception. Exp Brain Res 16:476–491. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruno N, Bernardis P (2002) Dissociating perception and action in Kanizsa’s compression illusion. Psychon Bull Rev 9:723–730. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bubka A, Bonato F (2010) Natural visual-field features enhance vection. Perception 39:627–635. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Edo A, Murata S, Kai Y, Madokoro K (2011) The characteristics of activities of extensor and dorsiflexor muscles in wrist joint during gripping action. Jpn J Occup Ther Res 14:31–34 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  11. Fujita A (1974) Space cognition and motor control. Fumaido Pub Co (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  12. Fujita A, Sugimoto K, Yamaoka J (1964) The effect of muscle tonus on visuo-spatial cognition. Jpn J Phys Educ Health Sport Sci 9:417. (in Japanese) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howard IP, Heckmann T (1989) Circular vection as a function of the relative sizes, distances, and positions of two competing visual displays. Perception 18:657–665. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jürgens R, Kliegl K, Kassubek J, Becker W (2016) Optokinetic circular vection: a test of visual–vestibular conflict models of vection nascensy. Exp brain Res 234:67–81. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Keshavarz B, Riecke BE, Hettinger LJ, Campos JL (2015) Vection and visually induced motion sickness: how are they related? Front Psychol 6:472. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Keshavarz B, Speck M, Haycock B, Berti S (2017) Effect of different display types on vection and its interaction with motion direction and field dependence. Iperception 8:3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim J, Khuu S (2014) A new spin on vection in depth. J Vis 14(5):5. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lécuyer A, Vidal M, Joly O, Mégard C, Berthoz A (2004) Can haptic feedback improve the perception of self-motion in virtual reality? Proc Symp Haptic Interface Virtual Env Teleoper Syst 208–215.
  19. Lepecq JC, Giannopulu I, Baudonniere PM (1995) Cognitive effects on visually induced body motion in children. Perception 24:435–449. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis BP, Linder DE (1997) Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 23:937–944. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linkenauger SA, Witt JK, Proffitt DR (2011) Taking a hands-on approach: apparent grasping ability scales the perception of object size. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:1432–1441. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mergner T, Schweigart G, Müller M, Hlavacka F, Becker W (2000) Visual contributions to human self-motion perception during horizontal body rotation. Arch Ital Biol 138:139–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Murata K, Seno T, Ozawa Y, Ichihara S (2014) Self-motion perception induced by cutaneous sensation caused by constant wind. Psychology (Irvine) 5:1777–1782. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mursic RA, Riecke BE, Apthorp D, Palmisano S (2017) The Shepard–Risset glissando: music that moves you. Exp Brain Res 235:3111–3127. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nakamura S, Shimojo S (1999) Critical role of foreground stimuli in perceiving visually induced self-motion (vection). Perception 28:893–902. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nooij SAE, Pretto P, Oberfeld D, Hecht H, Bülthoff HH (2017) Vection is the main contributor to motion sickness induced by visual yaw rotation: implications for conflict and eye movement theories. PloS One 12:e0175305. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Ogawa M, Seno T (2014) Vection is modulated by the semantic meaning of stimuli and experimental instructions. Perception 43:605–615. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ohmi M, Howard IP, Landolt JP (1987) Circular vection as a function of foreground–background relationships. Perception 16:17–22. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Oman CM (1990) Motion sickness: a synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 68:294–303. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Otsuka S, Ono F, Seno T (2017) Mindfulness can modulate vection strength. Int J Affect Eng 16:11–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmisano S, Chan AY (2004) Jitter and size effects on vection are immune to experimental instructions and demands. Perception 33:987–1000. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmisano S, Gillam BJ, Blackburn SG (2000) Global-perspective jitter improves vection in central vision. Perception 29:57–67. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmisano S, Bonato F, Bubka A, Folder J (2007) Vertical display oscillation effects on forward vection and simulator sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 78:951–956. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmisano S, Allison RS, Kim J, Bonato F (2011) Simulated viewpoint jitter shakes sensory conflict accounts of vection. Seeing Perceiving 24:173–200. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Palmisano S, Allison RS, Schira MM, Barry RJ (2015) Future challenges for vection research: definitions, functional significance, measures, and neural bases. Front Psychol 6:193. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmisano S, Mursic R, Kim J (2017) Vection and cybersickness generated by head-and-display motion in the oculus rift. Displays 46:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Post RB (1988) Circular vection is independent of stimulus eccentricity. Perception 17:737–744. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Raymond JE, Shapiro KL, Arnell KM (1992) Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:849–860. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Riecke BE, Jordan JD (2015) Comparing the effectiveness of different displays in enhancing illusions of self-movement (vection). Front Psychol 6:713. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Riecke BE, Schulte-Pelkum J, Avraamides MN, Heyde MVD, Bülthoff HH (2006) Cognitive factors can influence self-motion perception (vection) in virtual reality. ACM Trans Appl Percept 3:194–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Riecke BE, Feuereissen D, Rieser JJ (2008) Auditory self-motion illusions (“circular vection”) can be facilitated by vibrations and the potential for actual motion. Proc APGV 5:147–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seno T, Nakamura S (2013) Alcohol consumption enhances vection. Perception 42:580–582. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Seno T, Ito H, Sunaga S (2010) Vection aftereffects from expanding/contracting stimuli. Seeing Perceiving 23:273–294. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Seno T, Ogawa M, Ito H, Sunaga S (2011a) Consistent air flow to the face facilitates vection. Perception 40:1237–1240. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Seno T, Taya S, Ito H, Sunaga S (2011b) The mental number line in depth revealed by vection. Perception 40:1241–1244. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Seno T, Abe K, Kiyokawa S (2013) Wearing heavy iron clogs can inhibit vection. Multisens Res 26:569–580. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Seno T, Ogawa M, Tokunaga K, Kanaya H (2016) The facilitation of vection by “full-grass-water method”. Trans Virtual Real Soc Jpn 21:411–414. (in Japanese) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seno T, Sawai K, Kanaya H, Wakebe T, Ogawa M, Fujii Y, Palmisano S (2017) The oscillating potential model of visually induced vection. Iperception 8:6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seno T, Murata K, Fuji Y, Kanaya H, Ogawa M, Tokunaga K, Palmisano S (2018) Vection is enhanced by increased exposure to optic flow. Iperception 9:3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seya Y, Yamaguchi M, Shinoda H (2015) Single stimulus color can modulate vection. Front Psychol 6:406. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Teasdale JD, Segal ZV, Williams JMG, Ridgeway VA, Soulsby JM, Lau MA (2000) Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol 68:615–623. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Tokunaga K, Ogawa M, Ikehata S, Masuda T, Seno T (2016) Constitution of a database of vection scenes in Japanese movies and animations and experimental assessments of them. Trans Virtual Real Soc Jpn 21:35–47. (in Japanese) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Väljamäe A (2009) Auditorily-induced illusory self-motion: a review. Brain Res Rev 61:240–255. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Witt JK (2011) Action’s effect on perception. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:201–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Media and GovernanceKeio UniversityFujisawaJapan
  2. 2.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Faculty of DesignKyusyu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations