Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 10, pp 2675–2690 | Cite as

Material surface properties modulate vection strength

  • Yuki Morimoto
  • Hirotaro Sato
  • Chihiro Hiramatsu
  • Takeharu SenoEmail author
Research Article


Realistic appearance and complexity in the visual field are known to affect the strength of vection (visually induced self-motion perception). Although surface properties of materials are, therefore, expected to be visual features that influence vection, to date, the results have been mixed. Here, we used computer graphics to simulate self-motion through rendered 3D tunnels constructed from nine different materials (bark, ceramic, fabric, fur, glass, leather, metal, stone, and wood). There are three ways in which the new stimuli are changed from those found in previous studies: (1) as they move, their appearances interactively change with the 3D structures of the simulated world, as do all the lighting effects and 3D geometric appearances, (2) they are colored, (3) and their components covered a large portion of the visual field. The entire inner surface of each tunnel was composed from one of the nine materials, and optic flow was evoked when an observer virtually moved through the tunnel. Bark, fabric, leather, stone, and wood effectively induced strong vection, whereas, ceramic, glass, fur, and metal did not. Regression analyses suggested that low-level image features such as the lighting and amplitude of spatial frequency were the main factors that modulated vection strength. Additionally, subjective impressions of the nine surface materials showed that the perceived depth, smoothness, and rigidity were related to the perceived vection strength. Overall, our results indicate that surface properties of materials do indeed modulate vection strength.


Vection Surface properties Material Simulation Computer graphics Spatial frequency 



This work was supported by MEXT KAKENHI (Grant numbers JP26700016, JP17K12869, and JP18H01100) to TS. Part of this work was carried out under the Cooperative Research Project Program of the Research Institute of Electrical Communication, Tohoku University. We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript and to Dr. Motohide Seki for advice on statistical analysis. We thank Adam Phillips, PhD, from Edanz Group ( for English editing a draft of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

221_2019_5620_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (46 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (MP4 47,091 kb)
221_2019_5620_MOESM2_ESM.docx (2.2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 2204 kb)


  1. Adelson EH, Bergen J (1985) Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. J Opt Soc Am A 2:284–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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(3):299–306. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison RS, Ash A, Palmisano S (2014) Binocular contributions to linear vertical vection. J Vis 14(12):5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthoz A, Parvard B, Young LR (1975) Perceotion of linier horizontal self-motion induced by peripheral vision (linear vection). Basic characteristics and visual vestibular interactions. Exp Brain Res 25:936–945Google Scholar
  5. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandt T, Wist ER, Dichgans J (1975) Foreground and background in dynamic spatial orientation. Percept Psychophys 17:497–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bubka A, Bonato F (2010) Natural visual-field features enhance vection. Perception 39(5):627–635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dichgans J, Brandt T (1978) Visual–vestibular interaction: effects on self-motion perception and postural control. In: Held R, Leibowitz H, Teuber HL (eds) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol 8. Springer, New York, pp 755–804Google Scholar
  9. Emerson RC, Bergen JR, Adelson EH (1992) Directionally selective complex cells and the computation of motion energy in cat visual cortex. Vis Res 32:203–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gurnsey R, Fleet D, Potechin C (1998) Second-order motions contribute to vection. Vis Res 38:2801–2816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harel J, Koch C, Perona P (2007) Graph-based visual saliency. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 545–552Google Scholar
  12. Held R, Dichigans J, Bauer J (1975) Characteristics of moving visual scenes influencing spatial orientation. Vis Res 15:357–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 435–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hiramatsu C, Fujita K (2015) Visual categorization of surface qualities of materials by capuchin monkeys and humans. Vis Res 115:71–82. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hiramatsu C, Goda N, Komatsu H (2011) Transformation from image-based to perceptual representation of materials along the human ventral visual pathway. Neuroimage 57:482–494. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard IP (1982) Human visual orientation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Howard IP, Heckman T (1989) Circular vection as a function of the relative sizes, distances, and positions of two competing visual displays. Perception 18:657–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ito H, Fujimoto C (2003) Compound self-motion perception induced by two kinds of optical motion. Percept Psychophys 65:874–887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ito H, Shibata I (2005) Self-motion perception from expanding and contracting optical flows overlapped with binocular disparity. Vis Res 45:397–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Itti L, Koch C, Niebur E (1998) A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 20(11):1254–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim J, Khuu S, Palmisano S (2016) Vection depends on perceived surface properties. Atten Percept Psychophys 78(4):1163–1173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Klient H (1937) Versuche über die Wahrnehmung: I. Über Bewegung. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie 141:9–44Google Scholar
  23. Lishman JR, Lee DN (1973) The autonomy of visual kinaesthesis. Perception 2:287–294. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu ZL, Sperling G (1995) The functional architecture of human visual motion perception. Vis Res 35(19):2697–2722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nakamura S (2008) Effects of stimulus eccentricity on vection reevaluated with a binocularly defined depth. Jpn Psychol Res 50:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakamura S (2013) The influence of miniature effects applied to the motion image upon visually induced self-motion perception. TVRSJ 18(1):1–3 [in Japanese] Google Scholar
  27. Nakamura S, Shimojo S (2000) A slowly moving foreground can capture an observer’s self-motion a report of new motion illusion: inverted vection. Vis Res 40:2915–2923CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakamura S, Seno T, Ito H, Sunaga S (2010) Coherent modulation of stimulus colour can affect visually induced self-motion perception. Perception 39:1579–1590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ogawa M, Hiramatsu C, Seno T (2014) Surface qualities have little effect on vection strength. Front Psychol 5:610. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Ohmi M, Howard IP (1988) Effect of stationary objects on illusory forward self-motion induced by looming display. Perception 17:5–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ohmi M, Howard IP, Landolt JP (1987) Circular vection as a function of foreground and background relationship. Perception 16:17–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmisano S (2002) Consistent stereoscopic information increases the perceived speed of vection in depth. Perception 31(4):463–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmisano S, Gillam B (1998) Stimulus eccentricity and spatial frequency interact to determine circular vection. Perception 27:1067–1077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmisano S, Allison RS, Kim J, Bonato F (2011) Simulated viewpoint jitter shakes sensory conflict accounts of self-motion perception. Seeing Perceiving 24:173–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Palmisano S, Allison RS, Schira MM, Barry RJ (2015) Future challenges for vection research: definitions, functional significance, measures and neural bases. Front Psychol 6:193. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmisano S, Summersby S, Davies RG, Kim J (2016) Stereoscopic advantages for vection induced by radial, circular, and spiral optic flows. J Vis 16(14):7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Perlin K (2002) Improving noise. ACM Trans Graph 21(3):681–682. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riecke BE, Schulte-Pelkum J, Avraamides MN, Heyde MVD, Bülthoff HH (2006) Cognitive factors can influence selfmotion perception (vection) in virtual reality. ACM Trans Appl Percept 3:194–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T (2015) U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, Cham, pp 234–241Google Scholar
  40. Sauvan XM, Bonnet C (1993) Properties of curvilinear vection. Percept Psychophys 53:429–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sauvan XM, Bonnet C (1995) Spatiotemporal boundaries of linear vection. Percept Psychophys 57:898–904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmid AC, Doerschner K (2018) Shatter and splatter: the contribution of mechanical and optical properties to the perception of soft and hard breaking materials. J Vis 18(1):14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Seno T, Nakamura S, Ito H, Sunaga S (2010) Static visual components without depth modulation alter the strength of vection. Vis Res 50(19):1972–1981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Seno T, Abe K, Kiyokawa S (2013) Wearing heavy iron clogs can inhibit vection. Multisens Res 26(6):569–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Seno T, Palmisano S, Riecke BE, Nakamura S (2015) Walking without optic flow reduces subsequent vection. Exp Brain Res 233(1):275–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Seno T, Sawai KI, Kanaya H, Wakebe T, Ogawa M, Fujii Y, Palmisano S (2017) The oscillating potential model of visually induced vection. i-Perception 8(6):2041669517742176CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Sharan L (2009) The perception of material qualities in real-world images (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, BostonGoogle Scholar
  48. Sharan L, Rosenholtz R, Adelson EH (2014) Accuracy and speed of material categorization in real-world images. J Vis 14(9):12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Telford L, Spratley J, Frost B (1992) Linear vection in the central visual field facilitated by kinetic depth cues. Perception 21:337–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Telford L, Howard I, Ohmi M (1995) Heading judgments during active and passive self-motion. Exp Brain Res. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Uesaki M, Ashida H (2015) Optic-flow selective cortical sensory regions associated with self-reported states of vection. Front Psychol 6:775CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Wada A, Sakano Y, Ando H (2016) Differential responses to a visual self-motion signal in human medial cortical regions revealed by wide-view stimulation. Front Psychol 7:309CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Witkin HA, Asch SE (1948) Studies in space orientation. IV. Further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. J Exp Psychol 38(6):762–782. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuki Morimoto
    • 1
  • Hirotaro Sato
    • 1
  • Chihiro Hiramatsu
    • 1
  • Takeharu Seno
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of DesignKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations