Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 223, Issue 4, pp 479–487 | Cite as

Perception of smooth and perturbed vection in short-duration microgravity

  • Robert S. AllisonEmail author
  • James E. Zacher
  • Ramy Kirollos
  • Pearl S. Guterman
  • Stephen Palmisano
Research Article


Successful adaptation to the microgravity environment of space and readaptation to gravity on earth requires recalibration of visual and vestibular signals. Recently, we have shown that adding simulated viewpoint oscillation to visual self-motion displays produces more compelling vection (despite the expected increase in visual-vestibular conflict experienced by stationary observers). Currently, it is unclear what role adaptation to gravity might play in this oscillation-based vection advantage. The vection elicited by optic flow displays simulating either smooth forward motion or forward motion perturbed by viewpoint oscillation was assessed before, during and after microgravity exposure in parabolic flight. During normal 1-g conditions subjects experienced significantly stronger vection for oscillating compared to smooth radial optic flow. The magnitude of this oscillation enhancement was reduced during short-term microgravity exposure, more so for simulated interaural (as opposed to spinal) axis viewpoint oscillation. We also noted a small overall reduction in vection sensitivity post-flight. A supplementary experiment found that 1-g vection responses did not vary significantly across multiple testing sessions. These findings: (i) demonstrate that the oscillation advantage for vection is very stable and repeatable during 1-g conditions and (ii) imply that adaptation or conditioned responses played a role in the post-flight vection reductions. The effects observed in microgravity are discussed in terms of the ecology of terrestrial locomotion and the nature of movement in microgravity.


Self-motion Vision Vection Vestibular Sensory conflict Parabolic flight Perception Optic flow 



The authors would like to thank the following for making the microgravity flights possible: Stefanie Ruel, Luchino Cohen, Lorenzo Auriti, Marcus Dejmek, Niken Goswami, all of our subjects, the excellent pilots and support personnel at the National Research Council of Canada microgravity facility, and the staff at the Faculty of Science and Engineering workshops at York University. This research was supported under Canadian Space Agency contract # 9F007-091472.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 18938 kb)

221_2012_3275_MOESM2_ESM.docx (26 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 26 kb)


  1. Allison RS, Howard IP, Zacher JE (1999) Effect of field size, head motion, and rotational velocity on roll vection and illusory self-tilt in a tumbling room. Perception 28:299–306. doi: 10.1068/p2891 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson AJ (1990) Sensory functions and limitations of the vestibular system. In: Warren R, Wertheim AH (eds) Perception and control of self-motion. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 145–168Google Scholar
  3. Benson AJ, Spencer MB, Stott JR (1986) Thresholds for the detection of the direction of whole-body, linear movement in the horizontal plane. Aviat Space Environ Med 57:1088–1096PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthoz A, Pavard B, Young LR (1975) Perception of linear horizontal self-motion induced by peripheral vision (linearvection) basic characteristics and visual-vestibular interactions. Exp Brain Res 23:471–489. doi: 10.1007/BF00234916 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Berthoz A, Lacour M, Soechting JF, Vidal PP (1979) The role of vision in the control of posture during linear motion. Prog Brain Res 50:197–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandt T, Dichgans J, Büchele W (1974) Motion habituation: inverted self-motion perception and optokinetic after-nystagmus. Exp Brain Res 21:337–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bubka A, Bonato F (2010) Natural visual-field features enhance vection. Perception 39:627–635. doi: 10.1068/p6315 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey MP, Burish TG (1988) Etiology and treatment of the psychological side effects associated with cancer chemotherapy: a critical review and discussion. Psychol Bull 104:307–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheung BSK, Howard IP, Money KE (1990) Visually-induced tilt during parabolic flights. Exp Brain Res 81:391–397. doi: 10.1007/BF00228131 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cutting JE, Springer K, Braren PA, Johnson SH (1992) Wayfinding on foot from information in retinal, not optical, flow. J Exp Psychol Gen 121:41–72. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.41 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dichgans J, Brandt T (1978) Visual-vestibular interactions: effects on selfmotion perception and postural control. In: Held R, Leibowitz HW, Teuber HL (eds) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VIII. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp 755–804Google Scholar
  12. Gibson JJ (1966) The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Graybiel A, Wood CD, Miller EF, Cramer DB (1968) Diagnostic criteria for grading the severity of acute motion sickness. Aerosp Med 39:453–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Grossman GE, Leigh RJ, Bruce EN et al (1989) Performance of the human vestibuloocular reflex during locomotion. J Neurophysiol 62:264–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Guterman P, Allison RS, Palmisano SA, Zacher JE (2012) Influence of head orientation and viewpoint oscillation on linear vection. J Vestib Res 22:105–116. doi: 10.3233/VES-2012-0448 Google Scholar
  16. Haber F, Haber H (1950) Possible methods of producing the gravity-free state for medical research. J Aviation Med 21:395–400Google Scholar
  17. Harm D, Schlegel T (2002) Predicting motion sickness during parabolic flight. Auton Neurosci 97:116–121Google Scholar
  18. Harris LR, Morgan MJ, Still AW (1981) Moving and the motion after-effect. Nature 293:139–141. doi: 10.1038/293139a0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirasaki E, Moore ST, Raphan T, Cohen B (1999) Effects of walking velocity on vertical head and body movements during locomotion. Exp Brain Res 127:117–130. doi: 10.1007/s002210050781 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard IP (1982) Human visual orientation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  21. Karmali F, Shelhamer M (2008) The dynamics of parabolic flight: flight characteristics and passenger percepts. Acta Astronaut 63:594–602. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.04.009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klosterhalfen S, Kellermann S, Stockhorst U et al (2005) Latent inhibition of rotation chair-induced nausea in healthy male and female volunteers. Psychosom Med 67:335–340. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000156930.00201.e0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornilova LN, Mueller CH, Chernobyl’skii LM (1995) Phenomenology of spatial illusory reactions under conditions of weightlessness. Hum Physiol 21:344–351Google Scholar
  24. Mach E (1875) Grundlinien der Lehre von den Bewegungsempfindungen (Basic principles for the study of motion perception). Engelmann, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  25. MacNeilage PR, Banks MS, DeAngelis GC, Angelaki DE (2010) Vestibular heading discrimination and sensitivity to linear acceleration in head and world coordinates. J Neurosci 30:9084–9094. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1304-10.2010 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Malcolm R, Melvill Jones G (1974) Erroneous perception of vertical motion by humans seated in the upright position. Acta Otolaryngol 77:274–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oman CM (1990) Motion sickness: a synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 68:294–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oman CM (1998) Sensory conflict theory and space sickness: our changing perspective. J Vestib Res 8:51–56Google Scholar
  29. Palmisano S, Gillam BJ, Blackburn SG (2000) Global-perspective jitter improves vection in central vision. Perception 29:57–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmisano S, Burke D, Allison RS (2003) Coherent perspective jitter induces visual illusions of self-motion. Perception 32:97–110. doi: 10.1068/p3468 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmisano SA, Bonato F, Bubka A, Folder J (2007) Vertical display oscillation effects on forward vection and simulator sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 78:951–956PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmisano S, Allison RS, Pekin F (2008) Accelerating self-motion displays produce more compelling vection in depth. Perception 37:22–33. doi: 10.1068/p5806 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmisano S, Allison RS, Kim J, Bonato F (2011) Simulated viewpoint jitter shakes sensory conflict accounts of vection. See Perceiving 24:173–200. doi: 10.1163/187847511X570817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reason J, Brand JJ (1975) Motion sickness. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenhall U (1972) Vestibular macular mapping in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 81:339–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Shelhamer M, Zee DS (2003) Context-specific adaptation and its significance for neurovestibular problems of space flight. J Vestib Res 13:345–362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevens SS (1975) Psychophysics: introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. Transaction Publishers, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  38. von Grünau MW, Pilgrim K, Zhou R (2007) Velocity discrimination thresholds for flow field motions with moving observers. Vision Res 47:2453–2464. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallach H, Flaherty EW (1975) A compensation for field expansion caused by moving forward. Percept Psychophys 17:445–449. doi: 10.3758/BF03203291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Young LR, Shelhamer M (1990) Microgravity enhances the relative contribution of visually-induced motion sensation. Aviat Space Environ Med 61:525–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Young LR, Oman C, Watt D et al (1984) Spatial orientation in weightlessness and readaptation to earth’s gravity. Science 225:205–208. doi: 10.1126/science.6610215 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Young LR (1993) Space and the vestibular system: what has been learned? J Vestib Res 3:203–206Google Scholar
  43. Young LR, Oman CM, Merfeld D et al (1993) Spatial orientation and posture during and following weightlessness: human experiments on spacelab life sciences 1. J Vestib Res 3:231–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Yu X, Dickman JD, Angelaki DE (2012) Detection thresholds of macaque otolith afferents. J Neurosci 32:8306–8316. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1067-12.2012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zacharias GL, Young LR (1981) Influence of combined visual and vestibular cues on human perception and control of horizontal rotation. Exp Brain Res 41:159–171. doi: 10.1007/BF00236605 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert S. Allison
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • James E. Zacher
    • 2
  • Ramy Kirollos
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pearl S. Guterman
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stephen Palmisano
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Vision ResearchYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  4. 4.School of PsychologyUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations