Search for: All records

Stationarity perception refers to the ability to accurately perceive the surrounding visual environment as world-fixed during self-motion. Perception of stationarity depends on mechanisms that evaluate the congruence between retinal/oculomotor signals and head movement signals. In a series of psychophysical experiments, we systematically varied the congruence between retinal/oculomotor and head movement signals to find the range of visual gains that is compatible with perception of a stationary environment. On each trial, human subjects wearing a head-mounted display execute a yaw head movement and report whether the visual gain was perceived to be too slow or fast. A psychometric fit to the data across trials reveals the visual gain most compatible with stationarity (a measure of accuracy) and the sensitivity to visual gain manipulation (a measure of precision). Across experiments, we varied 1) the spatial frequency of the visual stimulus, 2) the retinal location of the visual stimulus (central vs. peripheral), and 3) fixation behavior (scene-fixed vs. head-fixed). Stationarity perception is most precise and accurate during scene-fixed fixation. Effects of spatial frequency and retinal stimulus location become evident during head-fixed fixation, when retinal image motion is increased. Virtual Reality sickness assessed using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire covaries with perceptual performance. Decreased accuracy is associated with an increase in the nausea subscore, while decreased precision is associated with an increase in the oculomotor and disorientation subscores. 

Abstract Head movement relative to the stationary environment gives rise to congruent vestibular and visual optic-flow signals. The resulting perception of a stationary visual environment, referred to herein as stationarity perception, depends on mechanisms that compare visual and vestibular signals to evaluate their congruence. Here we investigate the functioning of these mechanisms and their dependence on fixation behavior as well as on the activeversuspassive nature of the head movement. Stationarity perception was measured by modifying the gain on visual motion relative to head movement on individual trials and asking subjects to report whether the gain was too low or too high. Fitting a psychometric function to the data yields two key parameters of performance. The mean is a measure of accuracy, and the standard deviation is a measure of precision. Experiments were conducted using a head-mounted display with fixation behavior monitored by an embedded eye tracker. During active conditions, subjects rotated their heads in yaw ∼15 deg/s over ∼1 s. Each subject’s movements were recorded and played backviarotating chair during the passive condition. During head-fixed and scene-fixed fixation the fixation target moved with the head or scene, respectively. Both precision and accuracy were better during active than passive head movement, likely due to increased precision on the head movement estimate arising from motor prediction and neck proprioception. Performance was also better during scene-fixed than head-fixed fixation, perhaps due to decreased velocity of retinal image motion and increased precision on the retinal image motion estimate. These results reveal how the nature of head and eye movements mediate encoding, processing, and comparison of relevant sensory and motor signals. 

VR sickness is a major concern for many users as VR continues its expansion towards widespread everyday use. VR sickness is thought to arise, at least in part, due to the user’s intolerance of conflict between the visually simulated self-motion and actual physical movement. Many mitigation strategies involve consistently modifying the visual stimulus to reduce its impact on the user, but this individualized approach can have drawbacks in terms of complexity of implementation and non-uniformity of user experience. This study presents a novel alternative approach that involves training the user to better tolerate the adverse stimulus by tapping into natural adaptive perceptual mechanisms. In this study, we recruited users with limited VR experience that reported susceptibility to VR sickness. Baseline sickness was measured as participants navigated a rich and naturalistic visual environment. Then, on successive days, participants were exposed to optic flow in a more abstract visual environment, and strength of the optic flow was successively increased by increasing the visual contrast of the scene, because strength of optic flow and the resulting vection are thought to be major causes of VR sickness. Sickness measures decreased on successive days, indicating that adaptation was successful. On the final day, participants were again exposed to the rich and naturalistic visual environment, and the adaptation was maintained, demonstrating that it is possible for adaptation to transfer from more abstract to richer and more naturalistic environments. These results demonstrate that gradual adaptation to increasing optic flow strength in well-controlled, abstract environments allows users to gradually reduce their susceptibility to sickness, thereby increasing VR accessibility for those prone to sickness.