Effect of range of heading differences on human visual–inertial heading estimation
- 92 Downloads
Both visual and inertial cues are salient in heading determination. However, optic flow can ambiguously represent self-motion or environmental motion. It is unclear how visual and inertial heading cues are determined to have common cause and integrated vs perceived independently. In four experiments visual and inertial headings were presented simultaneously with ten subjects reporting visual or inertial headings in separate trial blocks. Experiment 1 examined inertial headings within 30° of straight-ahead and visual headings that were offset by up to 60°. Perception of the inertial heading was shifted in the direction of the visual stimulus by as much as 35° by the 60° offset, while perception of the visual stimulus remained largely uninfluenced. Experiment 2 used ± 140° range of inertial headings with up to 120° visual offset. This experiment found variable behavior between subjects with most perceiving the sensory stimuli to be shifted towards an intermediate heading but a few perceiving the headings independently. The visual and inertial headings influenced each other even at the largest offsets. Experiments 3 and 4 had similar inertial headings to experiments 1 and 2, respectively, except subjects reported environmental motion direction. Experiment 4 displayed similar perceptual influences as experiment 2, but in experiment 3 percepts were independent. Results suggested that perception of visual and inertial stimuli tend to be perceived as having common causation in most subjects with offsets up to 90° although with significant variation in perception between individuals. Limiting the range of inertial headings caused the visual heading to dominate the perception.
KeywordsHuman Visual Vestibular Multisensory Psychophysics
The authors would like to thank Kyle Critelli for technical assistance as well as editing the final paper. Grant support was provided by NIDCD R01 DC013580.
- Acerbi L, Dokka K, Angelaki DE, Ma WJ (2018) Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception. PLoS Comput Biol 14(7):e1006110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006110 (PubMed PMID: 30052625; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6063401. epub 2018/07/28) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fetsch CR, Deangelis GC, Angelaki DE (2010) Visual-vestibular cue integration for heading perception: applications of optimal cue integration theory. Eur J Neurosci 31(10):1721–1729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07207.x (PubMed PMID: 20584175; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3108057) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gibson JJ (1950) The perception of the visual world. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 235 pGoogle Scholar
- Guedry FE Jr (1974) Psychophysics of vestibular sensation. In: Kornhuber HH (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VI/2. Springer, New York, pp 3–154Google Scholar
- 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(27):9084–9094. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1304-10.2010 (PubMed PMID: 20610742; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2914270. epub 2010/07/09) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sato Y, Toyoizumi T, Aihara K (2007) Bayesian inference explains perception of unity and ventriloquism after effect: identification of common sources of audiovisual stimuli. Neural Comput 19(12):3335–3355. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2007.19.12.3335 (PubMed PMID: 17970656. epub 2007/11/01) CrossRefGoogle Scholar