Perception of image motion during head movement

ABSTRACT

Previous studies have shown that self-motion has an inhibiting effect on concurrent 3D motion perception. To investigate whether self-motion similarly impairs concurrent image motion perception, we examined human perception of head-referenced horizontal image motion during head movement. The displayed stimulus was composed of a checkerboard image in a head mounted display oscillating from side to side at four frequencies (0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2 Hz) with half peak-to-peak amplitudes ranging from 0° to 5.64. Eight observers rated the magnitude of the checkerboard motion while either rotating their head about a vertical axis (yaw), about a horizontal axis (pitch), or holding it still. For all image oscillation frequencies, perceptual sensitivity to image motion amplitude was reduced during both horizontal and vertical head movements (mean reduction: 0.44 and 0.17, respectively). In contrast, perceptual bias was affected only at 2 Hz (mean shift: −9.9% and −12.2% of the full image motion amplitude for horizontal and vertical head movements, respectively). The results indicate that head movement causes gain reductions in motion magnitude estimation at image oscillation frequencies ≤1 Hz. At an oscillation frequency of 2 Hz, head movement produces both a gain reduction and a bias shift. Virtual environment developers could take advantage of such effects by relaxing requirements for image stability as well as motion fidelity during head movement.

REFERENCES

• 1: Adelstein, B. D., Burns, E. M., Ellis, S. R., and Hill, M. I. 2005. Latency discrimination mechanisms in virtual Environments: velocity and displacement error factors. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Orlando, FL, 2221--2225.
• 2: Adelstein, B. D., Lee, T. G., and Ellis, S. R. 2003. Head Tracking Latency in Virtual Environments: Psychophysics and a Model. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, 2083--2087.
• 3: Adelstein, B. D., Li, L., Jerald, J. J., and Ellis, S. R. 2006. Suppression of head-referenced image motion during head movement. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Francisco, CA.
• 4: Ronald Azuma , Gary Bishop, Improving static and dynamic registration in an optical see-through HMD, Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.197-204, July 1994 [doi>10.1145/192161.192199]
• 5: Tom Banton , Jeanine Stefanucci , Frank Durgin , Adam Fass , Dennis Proffitt, The perception of walking speed in a virtual environment, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.14 n.4, p.394-406, August 2005 [doi>10.1162/105474605774785262]
• 6: Barlow, H. B. 1990. A theory about the functional role and synaptic mechanism of visual aftereffects, C. Blakemore, Ed., Vision: Coding and efficiency, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 363--375.
• 7: Bedell, H. E. and Patel, S. S. 2005. Attenuation of perceived motion smear during the vestibulo-ocular reflex, Vision Research, 45, 2191--2200.
• 8: Berthoz, A. 1981. Intersensory interaction in motion perception, J. Long and A. Baddeley, Ed., Attention and Performance, Vol. IX, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 27--45.
• 9: Frederick P. Brooks, What's Real About Virtual Reality?, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, v.19 n.6, p.16-27, November 1999 [doi>10.1109/38.799723]
• 10: Durgin, F. H., Gigone, K., and Scott, R. 2005. Perception of visual speed while moving, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 339--353.
• 11: Heeger, D. J. 1992. Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex, Visual Neuroscience, 9, 181--197.
• 12: Jung, J. Y., Adelstein, B. D., and Ellis, S. R. 2000. Discriminability of prediction artifacts in a time delayed virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica CA, 499--502.
• 13: Probst, T., Brandt, T., and Degner, D. 1986. Object-motion detection affected by concurrent self-motion perception: psychophysics of a new phenomenon, Behavioral Brain Research, 22, 1--11.
• 14: Probst, T., Krafczyk, S., Brandt, T., and Wist, E. R. 1984. Interaction between perceived self-motion and object-motion impairs vehicle guidance, Science, 225, 536--538.
• 15: Probst, T. and Wist, E. R. 1982. Impairment of object motion perception during head movements, Perception, 11, A33.
• 16: Wallach, H. 1987. Perceiving a stable environment when one moves, Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 1--27.
• 17: Wallach, H., Stanton, L., and Becker, D. 1974. The compensation for movement-produced changes in object orientation, Perception & Psychophysics, 15, 339--343.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Psychology

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Measurement, Performance

Keywords:
VE latency, head movement, head oscillation, image motion, motion perception