Judging beforehand the possibility of passing under obstacles without motion: the influence of egocentric and geocentric frames of reference

Otolith signals contribute to inter-individual differences in the perception of gravity-centered space

The aim of the present study was to investigate (1) the relative contribution of the egocentric reference as well as body orientation perception to visual horizon percept during tilt or during increased gravito-inertial acceleration (GiA, hypergravity environment) conditions and (2) the role of vestibular signals in the inter-individual differences observed in these perceptual modalities. Perceptual estimates analysis showed that backward tilt induced (1) an elevation of the visual horizon, (2) an elevation of the egocentric estimation (visual straight ahead) and (3) an overestimation of body tilt. The increase in the magnitude of GiA induced (1) a lowering of the apparent horizon, (2) a lowering of the straight ahead and (3) a perception of backward tilt. Overall, visual horizon percept can be expressed as the combination of body orientation perception and egocentric estimation. When assessing otolith reactivity using off-vertical axis rotation (OVAR), only visual egocentric estimation was significantly correlated with horizontal OVAR performance. On the one hand, we found a correlation between a low modulation amplitude of the otolith responses and straight ahead accuracy when the head axis was tilted relative to gravity. On the other hand, the bias of otolith responses was significantly correlated with straight ahead accuracy when subjects were submitted to an increase in the GiA. Thus, straight ahead sense would be dependent to some extent to otolith function. These results are discussed in terms of the contribution of otolith inputs in the overall multimodal integration subtending spatial constancy.

To pass or not to pass: more a question of body orientation than visual cues

This study investigated the influence of pitch body tilt on judging the possibility of passing under high obstacles in the presence of an illusory horizontal self-motion. Seated subjects tilted at various body orientations were asked to estimate the possibility of passing under a projected bar (i.e., a parking barrier), while imagining a forward whole-body displacement normal to gravity. This task was performed under two visual conditions, providing either no visual surroundings or a translational horizontal optic flow that stopped just before the barrier appeared. The results showed a main overestimation of the possibility of passing under the bar in both cases and most importantly revealed a strong influence of body orientation despite the visual specification of horizontal self-motion by optic flow (i.e., both visual conditions yielded a comparable body tilt effect). Specifically, the subjective passability was proportionally deviated towards the body tilt by 46% of its magnitude when facing a horizontal optic flow and 43% without visual surroundings. This suggests that the egocentric attraction exerted by body tilt when referring the subjective passability to horizontal self-motion still persists even when anchoring horizontally related visual cues are displayed. These findings are discussed in terms of interaction between spatial references. The link between the reliability of available sensory inputs and the weight attributed to each reference is also addressed.

Does the integration of haptic and visual cues reduce the effect of a biased visual reference frame on the subjective head orientation?

Background

The selection of appropriate frames of reference (FOR) is a key factor in the elaboration of spatial perception and the production of robust interaction with our environment. The extent to which we perceive the head axis orientation (subjective head orientation, SHO) with both accuracy and precision likely contributes to the efficiency of these spatial interactions. A first goal of this study was to investigate the relative contribution of both the visual and egocentric FOR (centre-of-mass) in the SHO processing. A second goal was to investigate humans' ability to process SHO in various sensory response modalities (visual, haptic and visuo-haptic), and the way they modify the reliance to either the visual or egocentric FORs. A third goal was to question whether subjects combined visual and haptic cues optimally to increase SHO certainty and to decrease the FORs disruption effect.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Thirteen subjects were asked to indicate their SHO while the visual and/or egocentric FORs were deviated. Four results emerged from our study. First, visual rod settings to SHO were altered by the tilted visual frame but not by the egocentric FOR alteration, whereas no haptic settings alteration was observed whether due to the egocentric FOR alteration or the tilted visual frame. These results are modulated by individual analysis. Second, visual and egocentric FOR dependency appear to be negatively correlated. Third, the response modality enrichment appears to improve SHO. Fourth, several combination rules of the visuo-haptic cues such as the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), Winner-Take-All (WTA) or Unweighted Mean (UWM) rule seem to account for SHO improvements. However, the UWM rule seems to best account for the improvement of visuo-haptic estimates, especially in situations with high FOR incongruence. Finally, the data also indicated that FOR reliance resulted from the application of UWM rule. This was observed more particularly, in the visual dependent subject. Conclusions: Taken together, these findings emphasize the importance of identifying individual spatial FOR preferences to assess the efficiency of our interaction with the environment whilst performing spatial tasks.

Postural configuration affects the perception of earth-based space during pitch tilt

This study investigates the relative contribution of body parts in the elaboration of a whole-body egocentric attraction phenomenon previously observed during earth-based judgments. This was addressed through a particular earth-based task requiring estimating the possibility of passing under a projected line, imagining a forward horizontal displacement. Different postural configurations were tested, involving whole-body tilt, trunk tilt alone or head tilt alone. Two legs positions relative to the trunk were manipulated. Results showed systematic deviations of the subjective "passability" toward the tilt, linearly related to the tilt magnitude. For each postural configuration, the egocentric influence appeared to be highly dependent on the position of trunk and head axes, whereas the legs position appeared not relevant. When compared to the whole-body tilt condition, tilting the trunk alone consistently reduced the amount of the deviation toward the tilt, whereas tilting the head alone consistently increased it. Our results suggest that several specific effects from multiple body parts can account for the global deviation of the estimates observed during whole-body tilt. Most importantly, we support that the relative contribution of the body segments could mainly depend on a reweighting process, probably based on the reliability of sensory information available for a particular postural set.

Pitch body orientation influences the perception of self-motion direction induced by optic flow

We studied the effect of static pitch body tilts on the perception of self-motion direction induced by a visual stimulus. Subjects were seated in front of a screen on which was projected a 3D cluster of moving dots visually simulating a forward motion of the observer with upward or downward directional biases (relative to a true earth horizontal direction). The subjects were tilted at various angles relative to gravity and were asked to estimate the direction of the perceived motion (nose-up, as during take-off or nose-down, as during landing). The data showed that body orientation proportionally affected the amount of error in the reported perceived direction (by 40% of body tilt magnitude in a range of +/-20 degrees) and these errors were systematically recorded in the direction of body tilt. As a consequence, a same visual stimulus was differently interpreted depending on body orientation. While the subjects were required to perform the task in a geocentric reference frame (i.e., relative to a gravity-related direction), they were obviously influenced by egocentric references. These results suggest that the perception of self-motion is not elaborated within an exclusive reference frame (either egocentric or geocentric) but rather results from the combined influence of both.

Interaction between reference frames during subjective vertical estimates in a tilted immersive virtual environment

Numerous studies highlighted the influence of a tilted visual frame on the perception of the visual vertical ('rod-and-frame effect' or RFE). Here, we investigated whether this influence can be modified in a virtual immersive environment (CAVE-like) by the structure of the visual scene and by the adjustment mode allowing visual or visuo-kinaesthetic control (V and VK mode, respectively). The way this influence might dynamically evolve throughout the adjustment was also investigated in two groups of subjects with the head unrestrained or restrained upright. RFE observed in the immersive environment was qualitatively comparable to that obtained in a real display (portable rod-and-frame test; Oltman 1968, Perceptual and Motor Skills 26 503-506). Moreover, RFE in the immersive environment appeared significantly influenced by the structure of the visual scene and by the adjustment mode: the more geometrical and meaningful 3-D features the visual scene contained, the greater the RFE. The RFE was also greater when the subjective vertical was assessed under visual control only, as compared to visuo-kinaesthetic control. Furthermore, the results showed a significant RFE increase throughout the adjustment, indicating that the influence of the visual scene upon subjective vertical might dynamically evolve over time. The latter effect was more pronounced for structured visual scenes and under visuo-kinaesthetic control. On the other hand, no difference was observed between the two groups of subjects having the head restrained or unrestrained. These results are discussed in terms of dynamic combination between coexisting reference frames for spatial orientation.