Perception of image motion during head movement

ABSTRACT

We examined human perception of head-referenced image motion during concurrent head movement. The visual stimulus was a checkerboard image in a head mounted display that moved from side-to-side. 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. In Experiment 1, we tested four image oscillation frequencies (0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 Hz) while holding the head motion frequency constant at 0.5 Hz. In Experiment 2, we tested three head motion frequencies (0.25, 0.5, and 1 Hz) while holding the image oscillation frequency constant at 1 Hz. Across all image and head motion frequencies, perceptual sensitivity to image motion was reduced by about 45% during horizontal head movement. During vertical head movement, perceptual sensitivity was reduced by about 25% when head and image motion were of the same frequency. Compared with when the head was still, horizontal and vertical head movements produced a downward shift of about 10% in overall motion magnitude estimation response. Findings from this study provide virtual environment developers with a quantitative description of the influence of concurrent head movement on the perception of frontoparallel image motion.

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. HFES, Santa Monica, CA, 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. HFES, 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. HFES, Santa Monica, 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. In C. Blakemore, Ed., Vision: Coding and Efficiency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 363--375.
• 7: Berthoz, A. 1981. Intersensory interaction in motion perception. In J. Long and A. Baddeley, Eds., Attention and Performance, Vol. IX. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 27--45.
• 8: 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]
• 9: Cullen, K. E., Belton, T., and Mccrea, R. A. 1991. A non-visual mechanism for voluntary cancellation of the vestibulo-ocular reflex. Exper. Brain Resear. 83, 237--252.
• 10: Drazin, D. H. 1962. Factors affecting vision during vibration. Research 15, 275--280.
• 11: Durgin, F. H., Gigone, K., and Scott, R. 2005. Perception of visual speed while moving. J. Exper. Psych.: Hum. Percep. Perform. 31, 339--353.
• 12: Heeger, D. J. 1992. Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex. Visual Neuroscience 9, 181--197.
• 13: von Helmholtz, H. 1962. Physiological Optics Vol III (treatise from 3^rd Germen edition of 1910). Dover, New York.
• 14: Huddleston, J. H. F. 1970. Tracking performance on a visual display apparently vibrating at one to ten Hertz. J. Appl. Psych. 54, 401--408.
• 15: 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. HFES, Santa Monica CA, 499--502.
• 16: Pelah, A. and Barlow, H. B. 1996. Visual illusion from running. Science 381, 283.
• 17: Pelah, A. and Thurrell, A. E. I. 2005. Matching visual and non-visual signals: Evidence for a mechanism to discount optic flow during locomotion. In Proceedings of the SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging. Bellingham, WA, 5666, 434--448.
• 18: Probst, T., Brandt, T., and Degner, D. 1986. Object-motion detection affected by concurrent self-motion perception: psychophysics of a new phenomenon. Behav. Brain Resear. 22, 1--11.
• 19: 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.
• 20: Probst, T. and Wist, E. R. 1982. Impairment of object motion perception during head movements. Perception 11s, A33.
• 21: Thurrell, A. E. I., Pelah, A., and Distler, H. K. 1998. The influence of non-visual signals of walking on the perceived speed of optic flow. Perception 27s, 147.
• 22: Wallach, H. 1987. Perceiving a stable environment when one moves. Annual Rev. Psych. 38, 1--27.
• 23: Wallach, H., Stanton, L., and Becker, D. 1974. The compensation for movement-produced changes in object orientation. Percep. Psychophy. 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:
Head movement, VE latency, image motion, motion perception, object motion