Search

This study investigated the relationships between personality and creativity in the perception of two different ambiguous visual illusions. Previous research has suggested that Industriousness and Openness/Intellect (as measured by the Big Five Aspects Scale) are both associated with individual differences in perceptual switching rates for binocular rivalry stimuli. Here, we examined whether these relationships generalise to the Necker Cube and the Spinning Dancer illusions. In the experimental phase of this study, participants viewed these ambiguous figures under both static and dynamic, as well as free-view and fixation, conditions. As predicted, perceptual switching rates were higher: (a) for the static Necker Cube than the Spinning Dancer, and (b) in free-view compared with fixation conditions. In the second phase of the study, personality type and divergent thinking were measured using the Big Five Aspects Scale and the Alternate Uses Task, respectively. Higher creativity/divergent thinking (as measured by the Alternate Uses Task) was found to predict greater switching rates for the static Necker Cube (but not the Spinning Dancer) under both free-view and fixation conditions. These findings suggest that there are differences in the perceptual processing of creative individuals.

Vection has typically been induced in stationary observers (ie conditions providing visual- only information about self-motion). Two recent studies have examined vection during active treadmill walking—one reported that treadmill walking in the same direction as the visually simulated self-motion impaired vection (Onimaru et al, 2010 Journal of Vision10(7):860), the other reported that it enhanced vection (Seno et al, 2011 Perception40 747–750; Seno et al, 2011 Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics73 1467–1476). Our study expands on these earlier investigations of vection during observer active movement. In experiment 1 we presented radially expanding optic flow and compared the vection produced in stationary observers with that produced during walking forward on a treadmill at a ‘matched’ speed. Experiment 2 compared the vection induced by forward treadmill walking while viewing expanding or contracting optic flow with that induced by viewing playbacks of these same displays while stationary. In both experiments subjects' tracked head movements were either incorporated into the self-motion displays (as simulated viewpoint jitter) or simply ignored. We found that treadmill walking always reduced vection (compared with stationary viewing conditions) and that simulated viewpoint jitter always increased vection (compared with constant velocity displays). These findings suggest that while consistent visual-vestibular information about self-acceleration increases vection, biomechanical self-motion information reduces this experience (irrespective of whether it is consistent or not with the visual input).

Hunger was found to facilitate visually induced illusory upward and downward self-motions (vertical vection), but not illusory self-motion in depth (vection in depth). We propose that the origin of this hunger effect lies in the possibility that vertical self-motions (both real and illusory) are more likely to induce changes in visceral state.

We measured the strength of the hollow-face illusion—the ‘flipping distance’ at which perception changes between convex and concave—as a function of a lens-induced 3 dioptre refractive error and monocular/binocular viewing. Refractive error and closing one eye both strengthened the illusion to approximately the same extent. The illusion was weakest viewed binocularly without refractive error and strongest viewed monocularly with it. This suggests binocular cues disambiguate the illusion at greater distances than monocular cues, but that both are disrupted by refractive error. We argue that refractive error leaves the ambiguous low-spatial-frequency shading information critical to the illusion largely unaffected while disrupting other, potentially disambiguating, depth/distance cues.

The hollow-face illusion involves a misperception of depth order: our perception follows our top–down knowledge that faces are convex, even though bottom–up depth information reflects the actual concave surface structure. While pictorial cues can be ambiguous, stereopsis should unambiguously indicate the actual depth order. We used computer-generated stereo images to investigate how, if at all, the sign and magnitude of binocular disparities affect the perceived depth of the illusory convex face. In experiment 1 participants adjusted the disparity of a convex comparison face until it matched a reference face. The reference face was either convex or hollow and had binocular disparities consistent with an average face or had disparities exaggerated, consistent with a face stretched in depth. We observed that apparent depth increased with disparity magnitude, even when the hollow faces were seen as convex (ie when perceived depth order was inconsistent with disparity sign). As expected, concave faces appeared flatter than convex faces, suggesting that disparity sign also affects perceived depth. In experiment 2, participants were presented with pairs of real and illusory convex faces. In each case, their task was to judge which of the two stimuli appeared to have the greater depth. Hollow faces with exaggerated disparities were again perceived as deeper.

We examined vection induced during physical or simulated head oscillation along either the horizontal or depth axis. In the first two experiments, during active conditions, subjects viewed radial-flow displays which simulated viewpoint oscillation that was either in-phase or out-of-phase with their own tracked head movements. In passive conditions, stationary subjects viewed playbacks of displays generated in earlier active conditions. A third control, experiment was also conducted where physical and simulated fore–aft oscillation was added to a lamellar flow display. Consistent with ecology, when active in-phase horizontal oscillation was added to a radial-flow display it modestly improved vection compared to active out-of-phase and passive conditions. However, when active fore–aft head movements were added to either a radial-flow or a lamellar-flow display, both in-phase and out-of-phase conditions produced very similar vection. Our research shows that consistent multisensory input can enhance the visual perception of self-motion in some situations. However, it is clear that multisensory stimulation does not have to be consistent (ie ecological) to generate compelling vection in depth.

In this study we examined the effects of simulated horizontal and vertical viewpoint jitter on the vection and postural sway induced by radial patterns of optic flow. During each trial, observers were exposed sequentially to 20 s periods of radially expanding flow, radially contracting flow, and static visual scenes. For half the trials, simulated viewpoint jitter was added to the radially expanding/contracting optic flow patterns. In experiment 1, we found that, while this jitter increased the backward postural sway induced by radial expansion, it actually decreased forward postural sway induced by radial contraction. However, in experiment 2 we found that jitter increased both the forward and backward vection induced by radially expanding and contracting flow patterns. We conclude that the processes involved in postural control are more sensitive to the sensory conflicts generated by viewpoint jitter than those involved in the perception of self-motion, and that the observed asymmetries in forward and backward sway are ecological in origin.

We examined the vection in depth induced when simulated random self-accelerations (jitter) and periodic self-accelerations (oscillation) were added to radial expanding optic flow (simulating constant-velocity forward self-motion). Contrary to the predictions of sensory-conflict theory frontal-plane jitter and oscillation were both found to significantly decrease the onsets and increase the speeds of vection in depth. Depth jitter and oscillation had lesser, but still significant, effects on the speed of vection in depth. A control experiment demonstrated that adding global perspective motion which simulated a constant-velocity frontal-plane self-motion had no significant effect on vection in depth induced by the radial component of the optic flow. These results are incompatible with the notion that constant-velocity displays produce optimal vection. Rather, they indicate that displays simulating self-acceleration can often produce more compelling experiences of self-motion in depth.

Previous research into the effects of viewpoint change on face recognition has typically dealt with rotations around the head's vertical axis (yaw). Another common, although less studied, source of viewpoint variation in faces is rotation around the head's horizontal pitch axis (pitch). In the current study we used both a sequential matching task and an old/new recognition task to examine the effect of viewpoint change following rotation about both pitch and yaw axes on human face recognition. The results of both tasks showed that recognition performance was better for faces rotated about yaw compared to pitch. Further, recognition performance for faces rotated upwards on the pitch axis was better than for faces rotated downwards. Thus, equivalent angular rotations about pitch and yaw do not produce equivalent viewpoint-dependent declines in recognition performance.

Investigations of change detection consistently reveal an effect of change magnitude: changes involving more object parts are detected more easily than those involving fewer parts. Whether large changes improve detection by providing stronger preattentive signals to the change location is subject to debate. We report a cued object change detection experiment that tested this hypothesis while controlling for stimulus familiarity, semantic knowledge, and change type (addition versus deletion). We found strong magnitude effects regardless of whether trials were validly or invalidly cued. The size of the cueing effects, which were exhibited for all the change magnitudes examined, did not decrease with the number of parts changing. These findings provide little support for a preattentive guidance hypothesis and instead support the thesis that change detection requires attention.

Previous research found that adding stereoscopic information to radially expanding optic flow decreased vection onsets and increased vection durations (Palmisano, 1996 Perception & Psychophysics58 1168–1176). In the current experiments, stereoscopic cues were also found to increase perceptions of vection speed and self-displacement during vection in depth—but only when these cues were consistent with monocularly available information about self-motion. Stereoscopic information did not appear to be improving vection by increasing the perceived maximum extent of displays or by making displays appear more three-dimensional. Rather, it appeared that consistent patterns of stereoscopic optic flow provided extra, purely binocular information about vection speed, which resulted in faster/more compelling illusions of self-motion in depth.

Ilusory self-motion (vection) can be induced by large areas of visual motion stimulation. Here we demonstrate for the first time that illusory expansion can induce vection in the absence of any physical display motion.

Previous vection research has tended to minimise visual – vestibular conflict by using optic-flow patterns which simulate self-motions of constant velocity. Here, experiments are reported on the effect of adding ‘global-perspective jitter’ to these displays—simulating forward motion of the observer on a platform oscillating in horizontal and/or vertical dimensions. Unlike non-jittering displays, jittering displays produced a situation of sustained visual–vestibular conflict. Contrary to the prevailing notion that visual – vestibular conflict impairs vection, jittering optic flow was found to produce shorter vection onsets and longer vection durations than non-jittering optic flow for all of jitter magnitudes and temporal frequencies examined. On the basis of these findings, it would appear that purely radial patterns of optic flow are not the optimal inducing stimuli for vection. Rather, flow patterns which contain both regular and random-oscillating components appear to produce the most compelling subjective experiences of self-motion.

While early research suggested that peripheral vision dominates the perception of self-motion, subsequent studies found little or no effect of stimulus eccentricity. In contradiction to these broad notions of ‘peripheral dominance’ and ‘eccentricity independence’, the present experiments showed that the spatial frequency of optic flow interacts with its eccentricity to determine circular vection magnitude—central stimulation producing the most compelling vection for high-spatial-frequency stimuli and peripheral stimulation producing the most compelling vection for lower-spatial-frequency stimuli. This interaction appeared to be due, in part at least, to the effect that the higher-spatial-frequency moving pattern had on subjects’ ability to organise optic flow into related motion about a single axis. For example, far-peripheral exposure to this high-spatial-frequency pattern caused many subjects to organise the optic flow into independent local regions of motion (a situation which clearly favoured the perception of object motion not self-motion). It is concluded that both high-spatial-frequency and low-spatial-frequency mechanisms are involved in the visual perception of self-motion—with their activities depending on the nature and eccentricity of the motion stimulation.

Research has shown that adding simulated linear head oscillation to radial optic flow displays enhances the illusion of self-motion in depth (ie linear vection). We examined whether this oscillation advantage for vection was due to either the added motion parallax or retinal slip generated by insufficient compensatory eye movement during display oscillation. We constructed radial flow displays which simulated 1 Hz horizontal linear head oscillation (generates motion parallax) or angular head oscillation in yaw (generates no motion parallax). We found that adding simulated angular or linear head oscillation to radial flow increased the strength of linear vection in depth. Neither type of simulated head oscillation significantly reduced vection onset latencies relative to pure radial flow. Simultaneous eye-movement recordings showed that slow-phase ocular following responses (OFRs) were induced in both linear and angular viewpoint oscillation conditions. Vection strength was significantly reduced by active central fixation when viewing displays which simulated angular, but not linear, head oscillation. When these displays with angular oscillation were viewed without stable fixation, vection strength was found to increase with the velocity and regularity of the OFR. We conclude that vection improvements observed during central viewing of displays with angular viewpoint oscillation depend on the generation of eye movements.

A new vection illusion is reported. Vection was induced even though there was no consciously perceived global display motion corresponding to the self-motion. The resulting experience can be summarised as: “I feel that I am moving but I do not know why”.

We examined the vection induced by consistent and conflicting multisensory information about self-motion. Observers viewed displays simulating constant-velocity self-motion in depth while physically oscillating their heads left–right or back–forth in time with a metronome. Their tracked head movements were either ignored or incorporated directly into the self-motion display (as an added simulated self-acceleration). When this head oscillation was updated into displays, sensory conflict was generated by simulating oscillation along: (i) an orthogonal axis to the head movement; or (ii) the same axis, but in a non-ecological direction. Simulated head oscillation always produced stronger vection than ‘no display oscillation’—even when the axis/direction of this display motion was inconsistent with the physical head motion. When head-and-display oscillation occurred along the same axis: (i) consistent (in-phase) horizontal display oscillation produced stronger vection than conflicting (out-of-phase) horizontal display oscillation; however, (ii) consistent and conflicting depth oscillation conditions did not induce significantly different vection. Overall, orthogonal-axis oscillation was found to produce very similar vection to same-axis oscillation. Thus, we conclude that while vection appears to be very robust to sensory conflict, there are situations where sensory consistency improves vection.

Evidence suggests that experiencing the hollow-face illusion involves perceptual reversal of the binocular disparities associated with the face even though the rest of the scene appears unchanged. This suggests stereoscopic processing of object shape may be independent of scene-based processing of the layout of objects in depth. We investigated the effects of global scene-based and local object-based disparity on the compellingness of the perceived convexity of the face. We took stereoscopic photographs of people in scenes, and independently reversed the binocular disparities associated with the head and scene. Participants rated perceived convexity of a natural disparity (“convex”) or reversed disparity (“concave”) face shown either in its original context with reversed or natural disparities or against a black background. Faces with natural disparity were rated as more convincingly convex independent of the background, showing that the local disparities can affect perceived convexity independent of disparities across the rest of the image. However, the apparent convexity of the faces was also greater in natural disparity scenes compared to either a reversed disparity scene or a zero disparity black background. This independent effect of natural scene disparity suggests that the ‘solidity’ associated with natural scene disparities spread to enhance the perceived convexity of the face itself. Together, these findings suggest that global and local disparity exert independent and additive effects upon the perceived convexity of the face.

Static and dynamic observers provided binocular and monocular estimates of the depths between real objects lying well beyond interaction space. On each trial, pairs of LEDs were presented inside a dark railway tunnel. The nearest LED was always 40 m from the observer, with the depth separation between LED pairs ranging from 0 up to 248 m. Dynamic binocular viewing was found to produce the greatest (ie most veridical) estimates of depth magnitude, followed next by static binocular viewing, and then by dynamic monocular viewing. (No significant depth was seen with static monocular viewing.) We found evidence that both binocular and monocular dynamic estimates of depth were scaled for the observation distance when the ground plane and walls of the tunnel were visible up to the nearest LED. We conclude that both motion parallax and stereopsis provide useful long-distance depth information and that motion-parallax information can enhance the degree of stereoscopic depth seen.

When stationary observers view an optic-flow pattern, visually induced self-motion perception (vection) and a form of motion sickness known as simulator sickness (SS), can result. Previous results suggest that an expanding flow pattern leads to more SS than a contracting pattern. Sensory conflict, a possible cause of SS, may be more salient when an expanding optic-flow pattern is viewed. An experiment was conducted to test if a more salient sensory conflict accompanying expanding flow patterns might inhibit vection. Participants ( n = 15) viewed a pattern of blue squares, either steadily expanded or contracted, on a large rear-projection screen. Vection onset and magnitude were measured for 30 s with a computer-interfaced slide device. Vection onset was significantly faster, and vection magnitude stronger, when a contracting pattern was viewed. We propose that our extensive experience with forward self-motion may form a neural expectancy (exposure-history) about the sensory inputs which typically accompany expanding flow. However, since backward self-motion is less common, there may be a weaker exposure-history for contracting flow, and as a result these patterns generate less salient sensory conflict and subsequently less vection.

Both coherent perspective jitter and explicit changing-size cues have been shown to improve the vection induced by radially expanding optic flow. We examined whether these stimulus-based vection advantages could be modified by altering cognitions and/or expectations about both the likelihood of self-motion perception and the purpose of the experiment. In the main experiment, participants were randomly assigned into two groups—one where the cognitive conditions biased participants towards self-motion perception and another where the cognitive conditions biased them towards object-motion perception. Contrary to earlier findings by Lepecq et al (1995 Perception24 435–449), we found that identical visual displays were less likely to induce vection in ‘object-motion-bias’ conditions than in ‘self-motion bias’ conditions. However, significant jitter and size advantages for vection were still found in both cognitive conditions (cognitive bias effects were greatest for non-jittering same-size control displays). The current results suggest that if a sufficiently large vection advantage can be produced when participants are expecting to experience self-motion, it is likely to persist in object-motion-bias conditions.

Palmisano et al (2000 Perception29 57–67) found that adding coherent perspective jitter to constant-velocity radial flow improved visually induced illusions of self-motion (vection). This was a surprising finding, because unlike pure radial flow, this jittering radial flow should have generated sustained visual–vestibular conflicts—previously thought to always reduce/impair vection. We attempted to ascertain the essential stimulus features for this jitter advantage for vection by examining three novel types of jitter display. While adding incoherent jitter to radial flow was found to impair vection, adding coherent non-perspective jitter had little effect on this subjective experience (contrary to the notion that jitter improves vection by reducing adaptation to radial flow). Importantly, we found that coherent perspective jitter not only improves the vection induced by radial flow, but it also appears to induce modest vection by itself (demonstrating that vection can still occur when there is an extreme mismatch between actual and expected vestibular activity). These results suggest that the previously demonstrated advantage for coherent perspective jitter was due (in part at least) to jittering vection combining with forwards vection in depth to produce a more compelling overall vection experience.