Effects of visual stimulus characteristics and individual differences in heading estimation

Winkel, Ksander N. de; Kurtz, M.L.; Bülthoff, Heinrich H.

doi:10.1167/18.11.9

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 c, p. 95; Crane 2014 ). Such a bias away from straight ahead has also been reported for horizontal heading estimations (Crane 2012 ; Cuturi and MacNeilage 2013 ; Hummel et al 2016 ; Winkel et al 2018 ). Such a bias might arise due to the anisotropy in MSTd (Gu et al 2010 ) resulting in neurons responding more strongly for headings that deviate from straight ahead.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

The effect of training on the perceived approach angle in visual vertical heading judgements in a virtual environment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past studies have found poorer performance on vertical heading judgement accuracy compared to horizontal heading judgement accuracy. In everyday life, precise vertical heading judgements are used less often than horizontal heading judgements as we cannot usually control our vertical direction. However, pilots judging a landing approach need to consistently discriminate vertical heading angles to land safely. This study addresses the impact of training on participants' ability to judge their touchdown point relative to a target in a virtual environment with a clearly defined ground plane and horizon. Thirty-one participants completed a touchdown point estimation task twice, using three angles of descent (3°, 6° and 9°). In between the two testing tasks, half of the participants completed a flight simulator landing training task which provided feedback on their vertical heading performance; while, the other half completed a two-dimensional puzzle game as a control. Overall, participants were more precise in their responses in the second testing compared to the first (from a SD of ± 0.91° to ± 0.67°), but only the experimental group showed improvement in accuracy (from a mean error of − 2.1° to − 0.6°). Our results suggest that with training, vertical heading judgments can be as accurate as horizontal heading judgments. This study is the first to show the effectiveness of training in vertical heading judgement in naïve individuals. The results are applicable in the field of aviation, informing possible strategies for pilot training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

The effect of training on the perceived approach angle in visual vertical heading judgements in a virtual environment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the classical RFT (Witkin and Asch, 1948) task, participants are shown a rod that is presented against the background of a (tilted) frame, and asked to align the rod with what they believe is upright. Many adaptations of this task have been used since (e.g., De Winkel et al, 2012, 2018bAlberts et al, 2016). We adopted this task using the AR system.…”

Section: Rod and Frame Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We therefore treat the visual and vestibular systems as a combined head tilt sensor, producing a signal x com with mean µ com = ϕ P +ϕ N +ϕ AR and standard deviation σ com . In line with the literature on visual perception, the standard deviation of the head tilt signal was allowed to increase with AR tilt angle (De Winkel et al, 2015, 2018bAcerbi et al, 2018). This was modeled by allowing σ com to increase with the eccentricity of ϕ AR : σ com = K com ϕ AR + σ com 0 .…”

Section: Verticality Perception Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Percepts of verticality are essential in all conditions where we have to stabilize ourselves, such as while standing or walking. Ample studies have shown that postural control (Van der Kooij et al, 1999, 2001Oie et al, 2002;Peterka, 2002;Carver et al, 2005;Happee et al, 2017) and perception of verticality (Eggert, 1998;Barnett-Cowan et al, 2005, 2011, 2013Dyde et al, 2006;Barnett-Cowan and Harris, 2008;Vingerhoets et al, 2009;Clemens et al, 2011;De Winkel et al, 2012, 2018bAlberts et al, 2016) derive from integration of sensory signals from the visual system and sensory organs responsive to gravitoinertial stimulation, and prior knowledge that "up" is usually above the head. It is generally accepted that the central nervous system constructs these percepts in a fashion that resembles calculating a vector sum (Mittelstaedt, 1983;Oman, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is generally accepted that the central nervous system constructs these percepts in a fashion that resembles calculating a vector sum (Mittelstaedt, 1983;Oman, 2003). More recently, this notion has been reinterpreted as a reflection of the nervous system performing statistical inference (Eggert, 1998;Dyde et al, 2006;Clemens et al, 2011;De Winkel et al, 2018b). According to these statistical models, a percept is a value for the inferred variable that maximizes the likelihood of sensory signals given the variable [i.e., Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), e.g., Ernst and Banks, 2002;Hillis et al, 2002;Ernst and Bülthoff, 2004], or a value that maximizes the posterior probability of the variable given the sensory signals; after factoring in prior knowledge [i.e., the Maximum A-Posteriori (MAP) estimate, e.g., Yuille and Bülthoff, 1996].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multisensory Interactions in Head and Body Centered Perception of Verticality

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Percepts of verticality are thought to be constructed as a weighted average of multisensory inputs, but the observed weights differ considerably between studies. In the present study, we evaluate whether this can be explained by differences in how visual, somatosensory and proprioceptive cues contribute to representations of the Head In Space (HIS) and Body In Space (BIS). Participants (10) were standing on a force plate on top of a motion platform while wearing a visualization device that allowed us to artificially tilt their visual surroundings. They were presented with (in)congruent combinations of visual, platform, and head tilt, and performed Rod & Frame Test (RFT) and Subjective Postural Vertical (SPV) tasks. We also recorded postural responses to evaluate the relation between perception and balance. The perception data shows that body tilt, head tilt, and visual tilt affect the HIS and BIS in both experimental tasks. For the RFT task, visual tilt induced considerable biases (≈ 10° for 36° visual tilt) in the direction of the vertical expressed in the visual scene; for the SPV task, participants also adjusted platform tilt to correct for illusory body tilt induced by the visual stimuli, but effects were much smaller (≈ 0.25°). Likewise, postural data from the SPV task indicate participants slightly shifted their weight to counteract visual tilt (0.3° for 36° visual tilt). The data reveal a striking dissociation of visual effects between the two tasks. We find that the data can be explained well using a model where percepts of the HIS and BIS are constructed from direct signals from head and body sensors, respectively, and indirect signals based on body and head signals but corrected for perceived neck tilt. These findings show that perception of the HIS and BIS derive from the same sensory signals, but see profoundly different weighting factors. We conclude that observations of different weightings between studies likely result from querying of distinct latent constructs referenced to the body or head in space.

show abstract

The role of acceleration and jerk in perception of above-threshold surge motion

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inertial motions may be defined in terms of acceleration and jerk, the time-derivative of acceleration. We investigated the relative contributions of these characteristics to the perceived intensity of motions. Participants were seated on a high-fidelity motion platform, and presented with 25 above-threshold 1 s forward (surge) motions that had acceleration values ranging between 0.5 and 2.5 m/s 2 and jerks between 20 and 60 m/s 3 , in five steps each. Participants performed two tasks: a magnitude estimation task, where they provided subjective ratings of motion intensity for each motion, and a two-interval forced choice task, where they provided judgments on which motion of a pair was more intense, for all possible combinations of the above motion profiles. Analysis of the data shows that responses on both tasks may be explained by a single model, and that this model should include acceleration only. The finding that perceived motion intensity depends on acceleration only appears inconsistent with previous findings. We show that this discrepancy can be explained by considering the frequency content of the motions, and demonstrate that a linear time-invariant systems model of the otoliths and subsequent processing can account for the present data as well as for previous findings.

show abstract

Effects of visual stimulus characteristics and individual differences in heading estimation

Cited by 14 publications

References 50 publications

The effect of training on the perceived approach angle in visual vertical heading judgements in a virtual environment

The effect of training on the perceived approach angle in visual vertical heading judgements in a virtual environment

Multisensory Interactions in Head and Body Centered Perception of Verticality

The role of acceleration and jerk in perception of above-threshold surge motion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About