Roll rate perceptual thresholds in active and passive curve driving simulation

Simulation

Volumn 92, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 417-426

  Kemeny, Andras ^c   Nesti, Alessandro ^a   Nooij, Suzanne ^a   Losert, Martin ^a,b   Bülthoff, Heinrich H ^a   Pretto, Paolo ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^c NONE

Author keywords

driving simulation; perceptual thresholds; psychophysics; roll tilt; self motion perception; tilt coordination; virtual reality; washout algorithm

Indexed keywords

CIRCUIT SIMULATION; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; VIRTUAL REALITY;

DRIVING SIMULATION; PERCEPTUAL THRESHOLD; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SELF-MOTION PERCEPTION; TILT COORDINATION; WASHOUT ALGORITHMS;

MOTION SENSORS;

EID: 84967154101     PISSN: 00375497     EISSN: 17413133     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0037549716637135     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Nahon MA, Reid LD., Simulator motion-drive algorithms: a designer's perspective. J Guid Contr Dynam 1990; 13: 356-362.
2. Groen EL, Bles W., How to use body tilt for the simulation of linear self motion. J Vestibular Res 2004; 14: 375-385.
3. Einstein A., Über das relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen folgerungen. Jahrbuch Der Radioaktivität Und Elektronik 1908; 4: 411-62.
4. Angelaki DE, Yakusheva TA., How vestibular neurons solve the tilt/translation ambiguity. Comparison of brainstem, cerebellum, and thalamus. Ann NY Acad Sci 2009; 1164: 19-28.
5. Berger DR, Schulte-Pelkum J, Bülthoff HH., Simulating believable forward accelerations on a stewart motion platform. Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Techincal Report No. 159, 2007.
6. Stratulat AM, Roussarie V, Vercher J, et al. Does tilt/translation ratio affect perception of deceleration in driving simulators? J Vestibular Res 2011; 21: 1-13.
7. Kandel E, Schwartz J, Jessell T, (eds). Principles of neural science. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Appleton and Lange, 2000.
8. Zaichik L, Rodchenko V, Rufov I, et al. Acceleration Perception. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, 1999, pp. 512-520.
9. Benson AJ, Hutt ECB, Brown SF., Thresholds for the perception of whole body angular movement about a vertical axis. Aviat Space Environ Med 1989; 60: 205-213.
10. Valko Y, Lewis RF, Priesol AJ, et al. Vestibular labyrinth contributions to human whole-body motion discrimination. J Neurosci 2012; 32: 13537-13542.
11. Guedry FE,. Psychophysics of vestibular sensation. In: Vestibular system part 2: psychophysics, applied aspects and general interpretations. handbook of sensory physiology, volume 6. Berlin: Springer, 1974, pp. 3-154.
12. Heerspink MH, Berkouwer WR, Stroosma O, et al. Evaluation of vestibular thresholds for motion detection in the SIMONA research simulator. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, August 2005, pp. 1-20.
13. Valente Pais AR, Mulder M, van Paassen MM, et al. Modeling human perceptual thresholds in self-motion perception. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, August 2006, pp. 1-15.
14. Hosman R, van der Vaart JC., Vestibular models and thresholds of motion perception. Results of tests in a flight simulator. Technical Report LR-265, TU Delft, 1978.
15. Nesti A, Masone C, Barnett-Cowan M, et al. Roll rate thresholds and perceived realism in driving simulation. In: Driving simulation conference, 2012.
16. Vroome De AM, Valente Pais AR, Pool DM, et al. Identification of motion perception thresholds in active control tasks. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, August 2009, pp. 1-20.
17. Wertheim AH, Mesland BS, Bles W., Cognitive suppression of tilt sensations during linear horizontal self-motion in the dark. Perception 2001; 30: 733-741.
18. Nieuwenhuizen FM, Bülthoff HH., The MPI CyberMotion Simulator: A novel research platform to investigate human control behavior. J Comput Sci Eng 2013; 7: 122-131.
19. Robuffo Giordano P, Masone C, Tesch J, et al. A novel framework for closed-loop robotic motion simulation-part II: motion cueing design and experimental validation. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2010, pp. 3896-3903.
20. Kaernbach C., A Single-Interval Adjustment-Matrix (SIAM) procedure for unbiased adaptive testing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 2645-2455.
21. Shepherd D, Hautus MJ, Stocks MA, et al. The Single Interval Adjustment Matrix (SIAM) Yes-No Task: An empirical assessment using auditory and gustatory stimuli. Attention Percept Psychophys 2011; 73: 1934-1947.
22. Kennedy RS, Hettinger LJ, Harm DL, et al. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 1996; 3: 203-220.
23. Golding JF, Mueller AG, Gresty MA,. A motion sickness maximum around the 0.2 Hz frequency range of horizontal translational oscillation. Aviat Space Environ Med 2001; 72 (3), 188-192.
24. Merfeld DM., Signal detection theory and vestibular thresholds: I. Basic theory and practical considerations. Exp Brain Res 2011; 210: 389-405.
25. Groen EL, Smaili MH, Hosman RJW,. Perception model analysis of flight simulator motion for a decrab maneuver. J Aircraft 2007; 44: 427-435.
26. Cain B., A review of the mental workload literature. RTO-TR-HFM-121-Part-II, 2007.
27. Wallis G, Tichon J., Predicting the efficacy of simulator-based training using a perceptual judgment task versus questionnaire-based measures of presence. Presence 2013; 22: 67-85.