Vection strength is modulated by the semantic meanings of stimuli. In experiment 1—even though vection stimuli were of uniform size, color, and luminance—when they also had semantic meaning as falling objects, vection was inhibited. Specifically, stimuli perceived as feathers, petals, and leaves did not effectively induce vection. In experiment 2 we used the downward motion of identical dots to induce vection. Participants observed stimuli while holding either an umbrella or a wooden sword. Results showed that vection was inhibited when participants held the umbrella and the stimuli was perceived as rain or snow falling. The two experiments suggest that vection is modulated by the semantic meaning of stimuli.
AndersenG. J.BraunsteinM. L. (1985). Induced self-motion in central vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 122–132.
2.
BerthozA.PavardB.YoungL. R. (1975). Perception of linear horizontal self-motion induced by peripheral vision (linear vection). Basic characteristics and visual-vestibular interactions. Experimental Brain Research, 23, 471–489.
BrandtT.DichgansJ.KoenigE. (1973). Differential effects of central versus peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception. Experimental Brain Research, 16, 476–491.
5.
BrandtT.WistE. R.DichgansJ. (1975). Foreground and background in dynamic spatial orientation. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 497–503.
6.
FischerM. H.KornmüllerA. E. (1930). Optokinetisch ausgelöste Bewegungswahrnehmungen und optokinetischer Nystagmus. Journal of Psychological Neurology, 41, 273–308.
HowardI. P.HeckmannT. (1989). Circular vection as a function of the relative sizes, distances, and positions of two competing visual displays. Perception, 18, 657–665.
9.
HowardI. P.HowardA. (1994). Vection: The contribution of absolute and relative visual motion. Perception, 23, 745–751.
10.
ItoH.ShibataI. (2005). Self-motion perception from expanding and contracting optical flows overlapped with binocular disparity. Vision Research, 45, 397–402.
11.
LepecqJ.-C.GiannopuluI.BaudonniereP.-M. (1995). Cognitive effects on visually induced body motion in children. Perception, 24, 435–449.
12.
OhmiM.HowardI. P. (1988). Effect of stationary objects on illusory forward self-motion induced by a looming display. Perception, 17, 5–12.
13.
OhmiM.HowardI. P.LandoltJ. P. (1987). Circular vection as a function of foreground-background relationships. Perception, 16, 17–22.
14.
PalmisanoS.ChanA. Y. C. (2004). Jitter and size effects on vection are robust to experimental instructions and demands. Perception, 33, 987–1000.
15.
RieckeB. E. (2010). Compelling self-motion through virtual environments without actual self-motion—using self-motion illusions (‘vection’) to improve user experience in VR. In KimJ.-J. (Ed.), Virtual reality (chap. 8, pp. 161–188). Rijeka, Croatia: In Tech. doi: 10.5772/553.
16.
RieckeB. E.Schukte-PelkumJ.CaniardF. (2006). Using the perceptually oriented approach to optimize spatial presence & ego-motion simulation. InHandbook of presence (pp. 49–57). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
TelfordL.SpratleyJ.FrostB. J. (1992). Linear vection in the central visual field facilitated by kinetic depth cues. Perception, 21, 337–349.
25.
WrightW. G.DiZioP.LacknerJ. R. (2006). Perceived self-motion in two visual contexts: Dissociable mechanisms underlie perception. Journal of Vestibular Research, 16, 23–28.
