Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptual scaling of visual and inertial cues

Effects of field of view, image size, depth cues, and degree of freedom

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the field of motion-based simulation, it was found that a visual amplitude equal to the inertial amplitude does not always provide the best perceived match between visual and inertial motion. This result is thought to be caused by the “quality” of the motion cues delivered by the simulator motion and visual systems. This paper studies how different visual characteristics, like field of view (FoV) and size and depth cues, influence the scaling between visual and inertial motion in a simulation environment. Subjects were exposed to simulator visuals with different fields of view and different visual scenes and were asked to vary the visual amplitude until it matched the perceived inertial amplitude. This was done for motion profiles in surge, sway, and yaw. Results showed that the subjective visual amplitude was significantly affected by the FoV, visual scene, and degree-of-freedom. When the FoV and visual scene were closer to what one expects in the real world, the scaling between the visual and inertial cues was closer to one. For yaw motion, the subjective visual amplitudes were approximately the same as the real inertial amplitudes, whereas for sway and especially surge, the subjective visual amplitudes were higher than the inertial amplitudes. This study demonstrated that visual characteristics affect the scaling between visual and inertial motion which leads to the hypothesis that this scaling may be a good metric to quantify the effect of different visual properties in motion-based simulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfano PL, Michel GF (1990) Restricting the field of view: perceptual and performance effects. Percept Mot Skills 70(1):35–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andre AD, Johnson WW (1992) Stereo effectiveness evaluation for precision hover tasks in a helmet-mounted display simulator. In: Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Chicago, IL

  • Arthur KW (1999) Effects of field of view on task performance with head-mounted displays. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  • Berger DR, Terzibas C, Beykirch KA, Bülthoff HH (2007) The role of visual cues and whole-body rotations in helicopter hovering control. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, Hilton Head, SC, AIAA 2007-6798

  • Berthoz A, Pavard B, Young LR (1975) Perception of linear horizontal self-motion induced by peripheral vision (linearvection) basic characteristics and visual-vestibular interactions. Exp Brain Res 23(5):471–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bos JE, Bles W (1998) Modelling motion sickness and subjective vertical mismatch detailed for vertical motions. Brain Res Bull 47(5):537–542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bos JE, MacKinnon SN, Patterson A (2005) Motion sickness symptoms in a ship motion simulator: effects of inside, outside, and no view. Aviat Space Environ Med 76(12):1111–1118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt T, Dichgans J, Koenig E (1973) Differential effects of central versus peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception. Exp Brain Res 16(5):476–491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bülthoff HH, Mallot HA (1988) Integration of depth modules: stereo and shading. J Opt Soc Am A 5(10):1749–1758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chung WWY, Sweet BT, Kaiser MK, Lewis E (2003) Visual cueing effects investigation for a hover task. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, Austin, TX, AIAA 2003-5524

  • Cornilleau-Pérès V, Gielen CCAM (1996) Interactions between self-motion and depth perception in the processing of optic flow. TRENDS Neurosci 19(5):196–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Correia Grácio BJ, Van Paassen MM, Mulder M, Wentink M (2010) Tuning of the lateral specific force gain based on human motion perception in the Desdemona simulator. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, Toronto, Ontario Canada, AIAA 2010-8094

  • Correia Grácio BJ, Valente Pais AR, Van Paassen MM, Mulder M, Kelly LC, Houck JA (2013) Optimal and coherence zone comparison within and between flight simulators. J Aircr 50(2):493–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dichgans J, Brandt T (1978) Visual-vestibular interaction: effects on self-motion perception and in postural control, vol 8, Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 755–804

  • Dokka K, MacNeilage PR, DeAngelis GC, Angelaki DE (2011) Estimating distance during self-motion: a role for visual-vestibular interactions. J Vis 11(13):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duh HBL, Lin JJW, Kenyon RV, Parker DE, Furness TA (2001) Effects of field of view on balance in an immersive environment. In: IEEE (ed) Virtual Reality, Yokohama, Japan, pp 235–240

  • Feenstra P, Wentink M, Correia Grácio BJ, Bles W (2009) Effect of simulator motion space on realism in the desdemona simulator. In: DSC 2009 Europe, Monaco

  • Groen EL, Valenti Clari MSV, Hosman RJAW (2001) Evaluation of perceived motion during a simulated takeoff run. J Aircr 38(4):600–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groen EL, Smaili MH, Hosman RJAW (2007) Perception model analysis of flight simulator motion for a decrab maneuver. J Aircr 44(2):427–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris LR, Jenkin M, Zikovitz DC (2000) Visual and non-visual cues in the perception of linear self motion. Exp Brain Res 135(1):12–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howard IP, Heckmann T (1989) Circular vection as a function of the relative sizes, distances, and positions of two competing visual displays. Perception 18(5):657–665

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howard IP, Howard A (1994) Vection: the contributions of absolute and relative visual motion. Perception 23(7):745–751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaekl PM, Allison RS, Harris LR, Jasiobedzka UT, Jenkin HL, Jenkin MR, Zacher JE, Zikovitz DC (2002) Perceptual stability during head movement in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality

  • Jaekl PM, Zikovitz DC, Jenkin MR, Jenkin HL, Zacher JE, Harris LR (2005) Gravity and perceptual stability during translational head movement on earth and in microgravity. Acta Astronaut 56(9–12):1033–1040

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keene ON (1995) The log transformation is special. Stat Med 14(8):811–819

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Longuet-Higgins HC, Prazdny K (1980) The interpretation of a moving retinal image. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 208(1173):385–397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacNeilage PR, Banks MS, Berger DR, Bülthoff HH (2007) A Bayesian model of the disambiguation of gravitoinertial force by visual cues. Exp Brain Res 179(2):263–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Medina Puerta A (1989) The power of shadows: shadow stereopsis. J Opt Soc Am A 6(2):309–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monen J, Brenner E (1994) Detecting changes in one’s own velocity from the optic flow. Perception 23:681–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nahon MA, Reid LD (1990) Simulator motion-drive algorithms: a designer’s perspective. J Guid Control Dyn 13(2):356–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono ME, Rivest J, Ono H (1986) Depth perception as a function of motion parallax and absolute-distance information. J Exp Psychol 12(3):331–337

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pretto P, Nusseck HG, Teufel HJ, Bülthoff HH (2009a) Effect of lateral motion on driver’s performance in the MPI motion simulator. In: DSC 2009 Europe, Monaco

  • Pretto P, Ogier M, Bülthoff HH, Bresciani JP (2009b) Influence of the size of the field of view on motion perception. Comput Graph 33(2):139–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redlick FP, Jenkin M, Harris LR (2001) Humans can use optic flow to estimate distance of travel. Vision Res 41(2):213–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riecke BE, Cunningham DW, Bülthoff HH (2007) Spatial updating in virtual reality: the sufficiency of visual information. Psychol Res 71(3):298–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Royden CS, Crowell JA, Banks MS (1994) Estimating heading during eye movements. Vision Res 34(23):3197–3214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roza M, Wentink M, Feenstra P (2007) Performance testing of the desdemona motion system. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit

  • Schroeder JA, Grant PR (2010) Pilot behavioral observations in motion flight simulation. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, Toronto, Ontario Canada, AIAA 2010-8353

  • Sinacori JB (1977) The determination of some requirements for a helicopter flight research simulation facility. Tech. Rep. CR-152066, NASA

  • Sugano N, Kato H, Tachibana K (2003) The effects of shadow representation of virtual objects in augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality, pp 76–83

  • Sweet BT, Kaiser MK (2011) Depth perception, cueing, and control. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, Portland, OR, AIAA 2011-6424

  • Valente Pais AR, Van Paassen MM, Mulder M, Wentink M (2010a) Perception coherence zones in flight simulation. J Aircr 47(6):2039–2048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente Pais AR, Van Paassen MM, Mulder M, Wentink M (2010b) Perception of combined visual and inertial low-frequency yaw motion. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, Toronto, Ontario Canada, AIAA 2010-8093

  • Vander Steen H (1998) An earth-stationary perceived visual scene during roll and yaw motions in a flight simulator. J Vestib Res 8(6):411–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallach H (1987) Perceiving a stable environment when one moves. Annu Rev Psychol 38:1–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partly supported by the Dutch defence research program V937 “Improved Performance at Motion.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Control and Simulation Division, Delft University of Technology, P. O. Box 5058, 2600 GB, Delft, The Netherlands

    B. J. Correia Grácio, M. M. van Paassen & M. Mulder

  2. TNO Behavioural and Societal Sciences, P. O. Box 23, 3769 ZG, Soesterberg, The Netherlands

    J. E. Bos

Authors
  1. B. J. Correia Grácio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. E. Bos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. M. van Paassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Mulder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. J. Correia Grácio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Correia Grácio, B.J., Bos, J.E., van Paassen, M.M. et al. Perceptual scaling of visual and inertial cues. Exp Brain Res 232, 637–646 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3772-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3772-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation