Simulating believable forward accelerations on a stewart motion platform

Abstract

Abstract. Here we present a study where human participants rated the believability of forward accelerations simulated with a hexapod motion platform equipped with a projection screen. Visual forward accelerations were presented together with brief forward surge translations and backwards pitches of the platform, and synchronous random up-down movements of the camera in the visual scene and the platform. The magnitudes of all of the parameters were varied independently across trials. Even though we found a high variability between participants, most believable simulation occured with strong visual accelerations combined with backwards pitches of the platform which approximately matched the visually simulated acceleration. This was contrary to a previous study, which had found most believable simulation when the platform movements simulated a much smaller acceleration than what was shown visually. Furthermore, surge translations increased believability if they qualitatively matched the magnitude of visual acceleration. The acceleration-deceleration profile of the surge translation and the magnitude and frequency range of the up-down movements had little effect on the believability. When strong visual acceleration cues were given, most participants reported trials as realistic even when the platform tilt rate was above thresholds for the vestibular canals reported in literature. These results can be used to optimize motion cueing algorithms for the simulation of linear accelerations in motion simulators.

Influence of Inertial Stimulus on Visuo-Vestibular Cues Conflict for Lateral Dynamics at Driving Simulators

“…Pearson's correlation was computed [18] between the conditions of static and dynamic driving simulator situations in order to assess the visuo-vestibular sensory conflict levels. According this; if the lateral acceleration at vehicle level is negatively correlated to the lateral acceleration at vestibular level, it yields less realistic driving simulation session.…”

“…The dynamic simulators are being used since the mid 1960's (Stewart platform) [13] firstly for the flight simulators, then the use has spread to the automotive applications [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. The utilization scope diversifies from driver training to research purposes such as vehicle dynamics control, advanced driving assistance systems (ADAS) [21].…”

“…Siegler et al in 2001 stated that if the motion platform was activated, the bias in reaching increased levels of decelerations was reduced strongly comparing to inactivated platform case for a braking maneuver [28] which was an indicator for avoidance of visuo-vestibular cues conflict. Berger et al investigated the believability of the forward acceleration on a Stewart motion platform [18,19].…”

Compelling Self-Motion Through Virtual Environments Without Actual Self-Motion – Using Self-Motion Illusions ('Vection') to Improve VR User Experience

“…Although moving sound fields by themselves can only induce vection in about 20-75% of blindfolded listeners, they have been shown to enhance vection induced by other modalities, including visual circular vection ) and biomechanical circular vection induced by stepping along a circular treadmill . Adding small physical motions (simple jerks) to the onset of visually simulated self-motion has been shown to significant enhance visually induced vection, both for passive movement (Berger et al, 2010;Schulte-Pelkum, 2007;Wong & Frost, 1981) and for simple self-initiated motion cueing (Riecke, 2006). Note that these jerks facilitated vection despite being only qualitatively correct (i.e., they matched the direction and precise temporal onset of the visual motion, but not the extent or acceleration).…”

Walking without optic flow reduces subsequent vection

“…A number of recent studies suggest that such visually-mediated self-motion perceptions can be facilitated by physically moving the observer in a manner consistent with the visual simulation (Berger et al 2010;Wong and Frost 1981;Wright, 2009;Bubka and Bonato 2010) or by incorporating active head motions of the observer directly into the self-motion display (Ash et al 2011a;Ash et al 2011b). 1 When taken together, such findings suggest that consistent multisensory stimulation may produce a more compelling overall experience of self-motion than visual self-motion stimulation alone.…”