Visuomotor Interactions and Perceptual Judgments in Virtual Reality Simulating Different Levels of Gravity.
interceptive action
internal models
predictive processes
sensorimotor interactions
visual perception
Journal
Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology
ISSN: 2296-4185
Titre abrégé: Front Bioeng Biotechnol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101632513
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
28
10
2019
accepted:
28
01
2020
entrez:
6
3
2020
pubmed:
7
3
2020
medline:
7
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Virtual reality is used to manipulate sensorimotor interactions in a controlled manner. A critical issue is represented by the extent to which virtual scenarios must conform to physical realism to allow ecological human-machine interactions. Among the physical constraints, Earth gravity is one of the most pervasive and significant for sensorimotor coordination. However, it is still unclear whether visual perception is sensitive to the level of gravity acting on target motion displayed in virtual reality, given the poor visual discrimination of accelerations. To test gravity sensitivity, we asked participants to hit a virtual ball rolling down an incline and falling in air, and to report whether ball motion was perceived as natural or unnatural. We manipulated the gravity level independently for the motion on the incline and for the motion in air. The ball was always visible during rolling, whereas it was visible or occluded during falling before interception. The scene included several cues allowing metric calibration of visual space and motion. We found that the perception rate of natural motion was significantly higher and less variable when ball kinematics was congruent with Earth gravity during both rolling and falling. Moreover, the timing of target interception was accurate only in this condition. Neither naturalness perception nor interception timing depended significantly on whether the target was visible during free-fall. Even when occluded, free-fall under natural gravity was correctly extrapolated from the preceding, visible phase of rolling motion. Naturalness perception depended on motor performance, in addition to the gravity level. In sum, both motor and perceptual responses were guided by an internal model of Earth gravity effects. We suggest that, in order to enhance perceptual sensitivity to physical realism, virtual reality should involve visual backgrounds with metric cues and closed-loop sensorimotor interactions. This suggestion might be especially relevant for the design of rehabilitation protocols.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32133351
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00076
pmc: PMC7039824
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
76Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 La Scaleia, Ceccarelli, Lacquaniti and Zago.
Références
Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jul;4(7):693-4
pubmed: 11426224
Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 1;9(1):14094
pubmed: 31575901
Perception. 1990;19(1):57-61
pubmed: 2336336
J Vis. 2019 Apr 1;19(4):13
pubmed: 30952164
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Feb;192(4):571-604
pubmed: 19139857
J Neurophysiol. 2019 Jun 1;121(6):2267-2275
pubmed: 31017845
J Neurophysiol. 2012 Feb;107(3):766-71
pubmed: 22090456
J Vis. 2011 Sep 20;11(10):13
pubmed: 21933933
Front Integr Neurosci. 2013 Dec 26;7:101
pubmed: 24421761
Science. 2005 Apr 15;308(5720):416-9
pubmed: 15831760
Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(2):178-88
pubmed: 15707903
Exp Brain Res. 2000 Jan;130(2):159-68
pubmed: 10672469
J Neurosci. 1989 Jan;9(1):149-59
pubmed: 2913201
Exp Brain Res. 2010 May;202(3):661-7
pubmed: 20135099
Neurology. 2018 May 29;90(22):1017-1025
pubmed: 29720544
Front Neurosci. 2020 Jan 24;13:1308
pubmed: 32038123
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Aug;36(4):1040-55
pubmed: 20695717
Vision Res. 2000;40(8):925-30
pubmed: 10720663
J Neurophysiol. 2008 Apr;99(4):1969-82
pubmed: 18057110
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001 Feb;54(1):69-93
pubmed: 11216322
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49381
pubmed: 23166653
Vision Res. 2019 Nov;164:12-23
pubmed: 31542657
Vision Res. 2018 Aug;149:47-58
pubmed: 29913247
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019 Mar;194:51-62
pubmed: 30743090
Neuroimage. 2015 Jan 1;104:221-30
pubmed: 25315789
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1985 Oct;11(4):795-803
pubmed: 2932526
Percept Psychophys. 1995 Feb;57(2):231-45
pubmed: 7885822
J Neurophysiol. 2017 Oct 1;118(4):2421-2434
pubmed: 28768737
Front Neurosci. 2018 Jun 22;12:406
pubmed: 29988401
Percept Psychophys. 1989 May;45(5):391-4
pubmed: 2726400
Front Integr Neurosci. 2015 Feb 23;9:13
pubmed: 25755637
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Apr 28;11:203
pubmed: 28503140
Trends Neurosci. 1992 Jan;15(1):20-5
pubmed: 1374953
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 25;9(3):e93020
pubmed: 24667578
J Neurophysiol. 2011 Aug;106(2):620-9
pubmed: 21562193
Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Sep;8(3):439-53
pubmed: 11700895
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 18;9(6):e99837
pubmed: 24940874
Exp Brain Res. 1997 Oct;116(3):406-20
pubmed: 9372290
J Vis. 2012 Oct 25;12(11):
pubmed: 23104819
Exp Brain Res. 2010 Mar;201(3):365-84
pubmed: 19882150
J Vis. 2011 Apr 08;11(4):
pubmed: 21478379
Eur J Neurosci. 2013 Apr;37(7):1112-9
pubmed: 23279153
J Neurophysiol. 2004 Apr;91(4):1620-34
pubmed: 14627663
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1983 May;35(Pt 2):333-46
pubmed: 6571315
Trends Neurosci. 1995 Jul;18(7):314-20
pubmed: 7571012
J Neurosci. 1989 Jan;9(1):134-48
pubmed: 2913200
J Neurosci. 2012 Feb 8;32(6):1969-73
pubmed: 22323710
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Sep;114(3):1577-92
pubmed: 26133803
J Neurophysiol. 2005 Dec;94(6):4471-80
pubmed: 16120661
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999 Dec;25(6):1673-92
pubmed: 10641315
Vision Res. 1992 Dec;32(12):2313-29
pubmed: 1288008
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Aug;197(4):311-9
pubmed: 19565223
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Apr;6(4):332-9
pubmed: 15803164
Neuron. 2011 Nov 3;72(3):425-42
pubmed: 22078503
Elife. 2016 Nov 02;5:
pubmed: 27805566
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2004 Dec 10;1(1):10
pubmed: 15679945
Exp Brain Res. 2007 Mar;178(1):99-114
pubmed: 17053910
Nature. 2015 Jan 15;517(7534):333-8
pubmed: 25487153
Cognition. 2017 Jan;158:208-214
pubmed: 27842273
Perception. 1976;5(2):241-3
pubmed: 951174
J Vis. 2019 Jun 3;19(6):16
pubmed: 31206138
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011 Nov 03;12(12):752-62
pubmed: 22048061
Mem Cognit. 2003 Jul;31(5):816-26
pubmed: 12956245
Perception. 1993;22(8):917-28
pubmed: 8190595
Perception. 1987;16(1):49-59
pubmed: 3671040