Perceptual scaling of visual and inertial cues

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.

Impaired stationarity perception is associated with increased virtual reality sickness

“… Steinicke, Bruder, Jerald, Frenz, & Lappe (2010) report an average PSE of gain=0.96 (accuracy) with approximately 30% increase/decrease in gain needed to detect increased/decreased gain. Correia Grácio et al (2013) also report gains close to unity, but they do not report precision in a manner that is comparable to the present study. In general, we attribute differences in values reported across studies to methodological differences including display device, content of the visual scene, and method used to track head movement and render scene motion contingent on that head movement.…”

“…The studies described above investigated stationarity perception during active yaw head turns with scene-fixed fixation (or uncontrolled fixation, which was presumably scene-fixed). Several studies (for example, Jaekl et al., 2005 ; Steinicke et al, 2010 ; Correia Grácio et al., 2013 ; Teng, Allison, & Wilcox, 2023 ) have investigated other degrees of freedom, meaning roll and pitch as well as linear head movements. Reported values for PSEs and JNDs vary considerably depending on the degree of freedom that is investigated.…”

“…Through repeated presentations it is possible to measure both the precision and accuracy of stationarity perception and how it varies across conditions. Although the original paradigm was implemented using analog methods, more recent studies ( Jaekl, Jenkin, & Harris, 2005 ; MacNeilage, 2007 ; Correia Grácio, Bos, Van Paassen, & Mulder, 2013 ; Garzorz & MacNeilage, 2017 ; Moroz, Garzorz, Folmer, & MacNeilage, 2019 ), including this one, present visual stimuli in virtual reality.…”

A review of human sensory dynamics for application to models of driver steering and speed control

“…By varying the field of view, resolution and depth of the visual scene, Correia Grácio et al. ( 2014 ) found that the optimal gain is strongly affected by the ‘quality’ of the visual cues, with more realistic visual scenes giving GMOs closer to 1.…”

Continuous Subjective Rating of Perceived Motion Incongruence During Driving Simulation

“…7, was similar. An explanation for this can be that participants are less capable of perceiving longitudinal vehicle acceleration, derived from the changes in velocity observed in the simulator visuals, than they are at extracting vehicle yaw rate from these visuals during curve driving due to differences in the optic flow for these two degrees-of-freedom, as explained in [42]. Less accuracy in the visually perceived vehicle motion results in a larger range of simulator motions still being perceived as congruent.…”