Simulating self-motion

Brain Research Bulletin

Volumn 40, Issue 5-6, 1996, Pages 473-475

  Van Der Steen, F A M ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Perception model; Self motion perception; Vehicle simulation; Virtual environments; Visual vestibular interaction

Indexed keywords

BODY MOVEMENT; CONFERENCE PAPER; MODEL; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION;

EID: 0029813102     PISSN: 03619230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0361-9230(96)00144-X     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. 1. Benson, A. J.; Hutt, E. C. B.; Brown, S. F. Thresholds for the perception of whole body angular movement about a vertical axis. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 60:205-213; 1989.
2. 2. Berg, A. V. van den; Grind, W. A. van de. Reaction times to motion onset and motion detection thresholds reflect the properties of bilocal motion detectors. Vision Res. 29(9):1261-1266; 1989.
3. 3. Berthoz, A.; Pavard, B.; Young, L. R. Perception of linear horizontal self-motion induced by peripheral vision (linear vection): Basic characteristics and visual-vestibular interactions. Exp. Brain Res. 23:471-489; 1975.
4. 4. Brandt, Th.; Büchele, W.; Arnold, F. Arthrokinetic nystagmus and ego-motion sensation. Exp. Brain Res. 30:331-338; 1977.
5. 5. Büttner, U.; Henn, V. Circularvection: Psychophysics and single-unit recordings in the alert monkey. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 374:274-283; 1981.
6. 6. Hosman, R. J. A. W.; Vaart, J. C. van der. Vestibular models and thresholds of motion perception. Results of tests in a flight simulator. Report LR-265, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; 1978.
7. 7. Howard, I. P. Human visual orientation. New York: Wiley; 1982.
8. 8. Howard, I. P.; Childerson, L. The contribution of motion, the visual frame, and visual polarity to sensations of body tilt. Perception 23:745-751; 1994.
9. 9. Lackner, J.. R. Induction of illusory self-rotation and nystagmus by a rotating sound-field. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 48(2):129-131; 1977.
10. 10. Lackner, J. R.; DiZio, P. Some efferent and somatosensory influences on body orientation and oculomotor control. In: Spillmann, L., Wooten, B. eds. Sensory experience, adaptation, and perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1984.
11. 11. McCauley, M. E., ed. Research issues in simulator sickness; Proceedings of a workshop. Washington: National Academy Press; 1984.
12. 12. Melcher, G. A.; Henn, V. The latency of circular vection during different accelerations of the optokinetic stimulus. Percept. Psychophys. 30:552-556; 1981.
13. 13. Nahon, M. A.; Reid, L. D. Simulator motion-drive algorithms: A designer's perspective. J. Guidance Control Dynam. 13(2):356-362; 1990.
14. 14. Parsons, R. D. Magnitude estimates of the oculogyral illusion during and following angular rotation. J. Exp. Psychol. 84:230-238; 1970.
15. 15. Steen, F. A. M. van der; Kamphuis, H. H. The environment provides the reference frame for self-motion perception. In: Proceedings of the XIVth European annual conference on human decision making and manual control. The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology; 1995.
16. 16. Wertheim, A. H. Motion perception during self-motion: The direct vs. inferential controversy revisited. Behav. Brain Sci. 17(2):293-355; 1994.
17. 17. Wong, S. L. P.; Frost, B. J. Subjective motion and acceleration induced by the movement of the observer's entire visual field. Percept. Psychophys. 24(2):115-120; 1978.
18. 18. Yardley, L. Motion sickness and perception: A reappraisal of the sensory conflict approach. Br. J. Psychol. 83:449-471; 1992.