The impact of visually simulated self-motion on predicting object motion.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
13
11
2023
accepted:
05
02
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
14
3
2024
entrez:
14
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To interact successfully with moving objects in our environment we need to be able to predict their behavior. Predicting the position of a moving object requires an estimate of its velocity. When flow parsing during self-motion is incomplete-that is, when some of the retinal motion created by self-motion is incorrectly attributed to object motion-object velocity estimates become biased. Further, the process of flow parsing should add noise and lead to object velocity judgements being more variable during self-motion. Biases and lowered precision in velocity estimation should then translate to biases and lowered precision in motion extrapolation. We investigated this relationship between self-motion, velocity estimation and motion extrapolation with two tasks performed in a realistic virtual reality (VR) environment: first, participants were shown a ball moving laterally which disappeared after a certain time. They then indicated by button press when they thought the ball would have hit a target rectangle positioned in the environment. While the ball was visible, participants sometimes experienced simultaneous visual lateral self-motion in either the same or in the opposite direction of the ball. The second task was a two-interval forced choice task in which participants judged which of two motions was faster: in one interval they saw the same ball they observed in the first task while in the other they saw a ball cloud whose speed was controlled by a PEST staircase. While observing the single ball, they were again moved visually either in the same or opposite direction as the ball or they remained static. We found the expected biases in estimated time-to-contact, while for the speed estimation task, this was only the case when the ball and observer were moving in opposite directions. Our hypotheses regarding precision were largely unsupported by the data. Overall, we draw several conclusions from this experiment: first, incomplete flow parsing can affect motion prediction. Further, it suggests that time-to-contact estimation and speed judgements are determined by partially different mechanisms. Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, there appear to be certain compensatory mechanisms at play that allow for much higher-than-expected precision when observers are experiencing self-motion-even when self-motion is simulated only visually.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38483949
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295110
pii: PONE-D-23-37053
pmc: PMC10939277
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0295110Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2024 Jörges, Harris. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Vision Res. 1999 Sep;39(19):3157-63
pubmed: 10615487
J Vis. 2007 Aug 16;7(11):2.1-11
pubmed: 17997657
Exp Brain Res. 2015 Feb;233(2):587-97
pubmed: 25361642
Vision Res. 2004 Jan;44(2):179-95
pubmed: 14637367
J Vis. 2008 Oct 23;8(14):5.1-10
pubmed: 19146306
Percept Psychophys. 1990 Feb;47(2):149-56
pubmed: 2304813
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Apr;194(4):647-60
pubmed: 19305984
Vision Res. 2017 Sep;138:12-17
pubmed: 28687325
Exp Brain Res. 2002 Jan;142(1):139-50
pubmed: 11797091
J Neurophysiol. 2012 Feb;107(3):766-71
pubmed: 22090456
Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(12):2430-6
pubmed: 16750227
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Feb;22(1):173-86
pubmed: 8742260
Perception. 2007;36(2):249-57
pubmed: 17402666
Exp Brain Res. 1975 Nov 14;23(5):529-33
pubmed: 1204695
J Neurophysiol. 1992 Oct;68(4):1332-44
pubmed: 1432087
J Vis. 2022 Oct 4;22(11):8
pubmed: 36223109
Vision Res. 2009 May;49(11):1406-19
pubmed: 19480063
J Neurophysiol. 2005 May;93(5):2974-86
pubmed: 15548629
J Vis. 2013 Feb 08;13(2):15
pubmed: 23397040
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 19;15(8):e0236732
pubmed: 32813686
J Neurophysiol. 2017 Jul 1;118(1):404-415
pubmed: 28515287
Eur J Neurosci. 2010 May;31(10):1721-9
pubmed: 20584175
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Jan;84(1):25-46
pubmed: 34704212
Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 1;9(1):14094
pubmed: 31575901
Exp Brain Res. 2012 May;218(4):551-65
pubmed: 22411581
J Neurophysiol. 1998 Jun;79(6):3272-8
pubmed: 9636126
Iperception. 2017 Nov 21;8(6):2041669517736072
pubmed: 29201335
Vision Res. 2019 Jan;154:85-96
pubmed: 30471309
J Opt Soc Am A. 1985 Feb;2(2):243-51
pubmed: 3973756
Cereb Cortex. 2015 Mar;25(3):619-30
pubmed: 24062317
PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 Nov 14;15(11):e1007397
pubmed: 31725723
Iperception. 2017 May 18;8(3):2041669517708206
pubmed: 28567272
Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(11):1766-78
pubmed: 12062888
J Vis. 2020 Oct 1;20(10):15
pubmed: 33052410
J Neurophysiol. 2011 Apr;105(4):1756-67
pubmed: 21289135
Vision Res. 2008 Jun;48(14):1532-8
pubmed: 18499213
Behav Brain Res. 1995 Oct;70(2):133-44
pubmed: 8561904
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Feb;192(4):571-604
pubmed: 19139857
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2017 Jun;60(3):130-140
pubmed: 28545844
Vision Res. 2008 Feb;48(5):655-63
pubmed: 18243274
Curr Biol. 2005 Jul 26;15(14):R542-3
pubmed: 16051158
J Vis. 2018 Dec 3;18(13):9
pubmed: 30550620