Advertisement

The Shepard–Risset glissando: music that moves you

Abstract

Sounds are thought to contribute to the perceptions of self-motion, often via higher-level, cognitive mechanisms. This study examined whether illusory self-motion (i.e. vection) could be induced by auditory metaphorical motion stimulation (without providing any spatialized or low-level sensory information consistent with self-motion). Five different types of auditory stimuli were presented in mono to our 20 blindfolded, stationary participants (via a loud speaker array): (1) an ascending Shepard–Risset glissando; (2) a descending Shepard–Risset glissando; (3) a combined Shepard–Risset glissando; (4) a combined-adjusted (loudness-controlled) Shepard–Risset glissando; and (5) a white-noise control stimulus. We found that auditory vection was consistently induced by all four Shepard–Risset glissandi compared to the white-noise control. This metaphorical auditory vection appeared similar in strength to the vection induced by the visual reference stimulus simulating vertical self-motion. Replicating past visual vection findings, we also found that individual differences in postural instability appeared to significantly predict auditory vection strength ratings. These findings are consistent with the notion that auditory contributions to self-motion perception may be predominantly due to higher-level cognitive factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Notes

  1. 1.

    When sitting in a stationary train, a train on an adjacent track begins to move and the observer typically misperceives their own train as moving in the opposite direction based on this visual motion stimulation (Dodge 1923).

  2. 2.

    Nystagmus refers to reflexive eye movements comprised of a mixture of slow phase (smooth pursuit) and fast (saccade) movements. This is normally induced by (1) the voluntary tracking of a moving visual field or (2) compensatory vestibular action during rotation of the head. In either case, nystagmus works to stabilize the foveal image in the event of scene/self-motion (Purves et al. 2001).

  3. 3.

    The Doppler Effect: the shift in sound frequency produced by the changing distance between the observer and a moving sound source (Väljamäe 2009). The emitted frequency of the sound wave (unchanged at the point of passage) is perceived to become progressively higher as the sound source approaches the observer or progressively lower as the sound source moves away from the observer (Neuhoff and McBeath 1996).

  4. 4.

    Since adding ascending/descending together increases the overall loudness, we reduced the amplitude of the combined-adjusted Shepard–Risset glissando to match the average decibels of the ascending Shepard–Risset glissando as an additional control for effects of loudness/intensity.

  5. 5.

    Shepard stimuli have been associated with a range of unusual bodily sensations that could be confused with vection (e.g. disrupted equilibrium, nausea etc.). Thus, we included a measure of vection direction (because other sensations are less likely to have an associated direction) and measured participants’ postural instability prior to any exposure to visual or auditory stimuli in an attempt to cross-validate the results.

  6. 6.

    During pilot testing, these visual motion displays were viewed while standing (with the idea of measuring sway during the displays as well as before). However, the experimenters found that these displays generated very powerful illusions and considerable perceived and physical postural instability (so much so that they did not feel comfortable standing). Accordingly, participants instead had to be seated during the actual experiment.

  7. 7.

    Romberg ratios of sway path length did not significantly predict auditory vection onset (R 2 = 0.003, t 16 = 0.219, p = 0.830) or auditory vection duration (R 2 = 0.118, t 16 = 1.414, p = 0.178). However, these null findings were not unexpected, as past studies have only been able to predict vection strength ratings using postural instability.

  8. 8.

    We ran a subsequent analysis with these nine participants removed. The same pattern of significant results was found when those who reported auditory vection to white noise (potentially high demand) were excluded.

References

  1. Apthorp D, Nagle F, Palmisano S (2014) Chaos in balance: non-linear measures of postural control predict individual variation in visual illusions of motion. PLoS One 9(12):e113897. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113897

  2. Brandt T, Dichgans J, Koenig E (1973) Differential effects of central versus peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception. Exp Brain Res 16:476–491. doi:10.1007/BF00234474

  3. Butler JS, Smith ST, Campos JL, Bülthoff HH (2010) Bayesian integration of visual and vestibular signals for heading. J Vis 10(11):1–13. doi:10.1167/10.11.23

  4. Deutsch D (1992) Some new pitch paradoxes and their implications. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336:391–397. doi:10.1098/rstb.1992.0073

  5. Dodge R (1923) Thresholds of rotation. J Exp Psychol 6:107–137. doi:10.1037/h0076105

  6. Eitan Z, Granot RY (2006) How music moves: musical parameters and listeners’ images of motion. Music Percept 23:221–247. doi:10.1525/mp.2006.23.3.221

  7. Hedger S, Nusbaum H, Lescop O, Wallisch P, Hoeckner B (2013) Music can elicit a visual motion aftereffect. Atten Percept Psychophys 75:1039–1047. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0443-z

  8. Hettinger LJ, Schmidt T, Jones DL, Keshavarz B (2014) Illusory self-motion in virtual environments. In: Hale KS, Stanney KM (eds) Handbook of virtual environments: design, implementation, and applications, 2nd edn. CRC Press, New York, pp 435–466

  9. Keshavarz B, Berti S (2014) Integration of sensory information precedes the sensation of vection: a combined behavioral and event-related brain potential (ERP) study. Behav Brain Res 259:131–136. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2013.10.045

  10. Keshavarz B, Hettinger LJ, Vena D, Campos JL (2014) Combined effects of auditory and visual cues on the perception of vection. Exp Brain Res 232:827–836. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3793-9

  11. Keshavarz B, Campos JL, Berti S (2015) Vection lies in the brain of the beholder: EEG parameters as an objective measurement of vection. Front Psychol 6:1581. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01581

  12. Keshavarz B, Speck M, Haycock B, Berti S (2017) Effect of different display types on vection and its interaction with motion direction and field dependence. iPerception 8(3):1–18. doi:10.1177/2041669517707768

  13. Lackner JR (1977) Induction of illusory self-rotation and nystagmus by a rotating sound-field. Aviat Space Environ Med 48:129–131

  14. Larsson P, Västfjäll D, Kleiner M (2004) Perception of self-motion and presence in auditory virtual environments. Proceedings of the seventh annual workshop of presence, Valencia, Spain 2004, pp 252–258. http://www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=2953

  15. Lepecq JC, Giannopulu I, Baudonniere PM (1995) Cognitive effects on visually induced body motion in children. Perception 24(4):435–449. doi:10.1068/p240435

  16. Mast FW, Berthoz A, Kosslyn SM (2016) Mental imagery of visual motion modifies the perception of roll-vection stimulation. Perception 30(8):945–957

  17. Neuhoff JG, McBeath MK (1996) The Doppler illusion: the influence of dynamic intensity change on perceived pitch. J Exp Pyschol Hum Percept Perform 22(4):970–985. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.970

  18. Ogawa M, Seno T (2014) Vection is modulated by the semantic meaning of stimuli and experimental instructions. Perception 43(7):605–615

  19. Olson HF (1972) The measurement of loudness. Audio 25(2):18–22

  20. Orini M, Laguna P, Mainardi LT, Bailón R (2012) Influence of music emotional valence on cardio-respiratory coupling. In: The twelfth international workshop on biosignal interpretation, Como, Italy

  21. Palmisano S, Chan AYC (2004) Jitter and size effects on vection are immune to experimental instructions and demands. Perception 33:987–1000. doi:10.1068/p5242

  22. Palmisano S, Apthorp D, Seno T, Stapley PJ (2014) Spontaneous postural sway predicts the strengths of smooth vection. Exp Brain Res 232(4):185–1191. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-3835-y

  23. Palmisano S, Allison R, Schira M, Barry RJ (2015) Future challenges for vection research: definitions, functional significance, measures and neural bases. Front Psychol 6:1–15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00193/full

  24. Palmisano S, Barry RJ, De Blasio FM, Fogarty JS (2016) Identifying objective EEG based markers of linear vection in depth. Front Psychol 7:1205. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01205

  25. Pigeon S (2013) Shepard madness: Binaural Shepard tone generator. My noise. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/shepardAudioIllusionToneGenerator.php. Accessed 20 July 17

  26. Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ, Fay RR (2006) Pitch: neural coding and perception. Springer, New York

  27. Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D et al (2001) Neuroscience, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

  28. Riecke BE (2009) Cognitive and higher-level contributions to illusory self-motion perception (“vection”): does the possibility of actual motion affect vection. Jpn J Psychon Sci 28(1):135–139. doi:10.14947/psychono.KJ00005878681

  29. Riecke BE (2010) Compelling self-motion through virtual environments without actual self-motion—using self-motion illusions (“vection”) to improve user experience in VR. In: Kim J (ed) Virtual reality. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 149–176. doi:10.5772/13150

  30. Riecke BE, Västfjäll D, Larsson P, Schulte-Pelkum J (2005) Top-down and multi-modal influences on self-motion perception in virtual reality. In: 11th International conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI International 2005). Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp 1–10

  31. Riecke BE, Schulte-Pelkum J, Avraamides MN, Von Der Heyde M (2006) Cognitive factors can influence self-motion perception (vection) in virtual reality. ACM Trans Appl Percept 3:194–216. doi:10.1145/1498700.1498701

  32. Riecke BE, Väljamäe A, Schulte-Pelkum J (2009) Moving sounds enhance the visually induced self-motion illusion (circular vection) in virtual reality. ACM Trans Appl Percept 6:1–26. doi:10.1145/1498700.1498701

  33. Seno T, Fukuda H (2012) Stimulus meaning alter illusory self-motion (vection)—experimental examination of the train illusion. See Perceiving 25:631–645. doi:10.1163/18784763-00002394

  34. Seno T, Hasuo E, Ito H, Nakajima Y (2012a) Perceptually plausible sounds facilitate visually induced self-motion perception (vection). Perception 41:577–593. doi:10.1068/p7184

  35. Seno T, Ito H, Sunaga S (2012b) Vection can be induced in the absence of explicit motion stimuli. Exp Brain Res 219:235–244. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3083-y

  36. Seno T (2013) Music modulates the strength of vection. Psychology 4(7):566–568

  37. Shepard RN (1964) Circularity in judgments of relative pitch. J Acoust Soc Am 36:2346–2353

  38. Shimizu Y, Umeda M, Mano H, Aoki I, Higushi T, Tanaka C (2007) Neuronal response to Shepard’s tones. An auditory fMRI study using multifractal analysis. Brain Res 1186:113–123. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.09.097

  39. Stoffregen TA, Pagulayan RJ, Bardy BG, Hettinger LJ (2000) Modulating postural control to facilitate visual performance. Hum Mov Sci 19:203–220. doi:10.1016/S0167-9457(00)00009-9

  40. Väljamäe A (2009) Auditorily-induced illusory self-motion: a review. Brain Res Rev 61:240–255. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2009.07.001

  41. Väljamäe A, Sell S (2014) The influence of imagery vividness on cognitive and perceptual cues in circular auditorily-induced vection. Front Psychol 5:1–8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01362

  42. Väljamäe A, Larsson P, Västfjäll D, Kleiner M (2004) Auditory presence, individualized head-related transfer functions, and illusory ego-motion in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual workshop of presence, Valencia, Spain, pp 141–147

  43. Väljamäe A, Larsson P, Västfjäll D, Kleiner M (2005) Traveling without moving: auditory scene cues for translational self-motion. In: Proceedings of the eleventh International conference on auditory display, Limerick, Ireland, pp 1–8

  44. Väljamäe A, Larsson P, Västfjäll D, Kleiner M (2008) Sound representing self-motion in virtual environments enhances linear vection. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 17:43–56. doi:10.1162/pres.17.1.43

  45. Vernooij E, Orcalli A, Fabbro F, Crescentini C (2016) Listening to the Shepard–Risset glissando: the relationship between emotional response, disruption of equilibrium, and personality. Front Psychol 7(300):1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00300

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted with the support of the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship awarded to RAM. It was also supported by a University of Wollongong, Faculty of Social Sciences, Near Miss Grant awarded to SP.

Author information

Correspondence to Rebecca A. Mursic.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 11932 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (WAV 5168 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (WAV 5168 kb)

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 11932 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (WAV 5168 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (WAV 5168 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mursic, R.A., Riecke, B.E., Apthorp, D. et al. The Shepard–Risset glissando: music that moves you. Exp Brain Res 235, 3111–3127 (2017) doi:10.1007/s00221-017-5033-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Illusory self-motion
  • Vection
  • Auditory perception
  • Shepard–Risset glissando
  • Postural sway