Limits...
Human Vection Perception Using Inertial Nulling and Certainty Estimation: The Effect of Migraine History.

Miller MA, O'Leary CJ, Allen PD, Crane BT - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: This study examines the effect of the duration of visual field movement (VFM) on the perceived strength of self-motion using an inertial ing (IN) and a magnitude estimation technique based on the certainty that motion occurred (certainty estimation, CE).For the IN method, an inertial ing motion was delivered during this final 1s of the visual stimulus, and subjects reported the direction of perceived self-motion during this final second.Together, these results suggest that vection may be measured by both CE and IN techniques with good correlation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, 14642, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Vection is an illusory perception of self-motion that can occur when visual motion fills the majority of the visual field. This study examines the effect of the duration of visual field movement (VFM) on the perceived strength of self-motion using an inertial ing (IN) and a magnitude estimation technique based on the certainty that motion occurred (certainty estimation, CE). These techniques were then used to investigate the association between migraine diagnosis and the strength of perceived vection. Visual star-field stimuli consistent with either looming or receding motion were presented for 1, 4, 8 or 16s. Subjects reported the perceived direction of self-motion during the final 1s of the stimulus. For the IN method, an inertial ing motion was delivered during this final 1s of the visual stimulus, and subjects reported the direction of perceived self-motion during this final second. The magnitude of inertial motion was varied adaptively to determine the point of subjective equality (PSE) at which forward or backward responses were equally likely. For the CE trials the same range of VFM was used but without inertial motion and subjects rated their certainty of motion on a scale of 0-100. PSE determined with the IN technique depended on direction and duration of visual motion and the CE technique showed greater certainty of perceived vection with longer VFM duration. A strong correlation between CE and IN techniques was present for the 8s stimulus. There was appreciable between-subject variation in both CE and IN techniques and migraine was associated with significantly increased perception of self-motion by CE and IN at 8 and 16s. Together, these results suggest that vection may be measured by both CE and IN techniques with good correlation. The results also suggest that susceptibility to vection may be higher in subjects with a history of migraine.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Data from a block of trials in an individual subject (subject 12, from Exp 2).In this block there was a 8s visual stimulus. Circles in the two upper panels are sized proportionally to the number of responses represented. A cumulative distribution function (CDF) was calculated from each data set as a method for determining the mean (bias) and sigma (threshold) of inertial motion detection for each test condition. In this subject, the CDF had a significant shift towards the right when looming VFM was presented (top panel, dashed curve) when compared with receding VFM (middle panel, solid curve). Thus for when there was no inertial motion, looming VFM was reported as forward self-motion. Each CDF was fit to the data 2,000x after being randomly resampled prior to each fit. The histograms of these fits are shown in the bottom panel which demonstrates a significant difference between the two conditions based on no overlap between the curves.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4539192&req=5

pone.0135335.g003: Data from a block of trials in an individual subject (subject 12, from Exp 2).In this block there was a 8s visual stimulus. Circles in the two upper panels are sized proportionally to the number of responses represented. A cumulative distribution function (CDF) was calculated from each data set as a method for determining the mean (bias) and sigma (threshold) of inertial motion detection for each test condition. In this subject, the CDF had a significant shift towards the right when looming VFM was presented (top panel, dashed curve) when compared with receding VFM (middle panel, solid curve). Thus for when there was no inertial motion, looming VFM was reported as forward self-motion. Each CDF was fit to the data 2,000x after being randomly resampled prior to each fit. The histograms of these fits are shown in the bottom panel which demonstrates a significant difference between the two conditions based on no overlap between the curves.

Mentions: For the PSE trials, the proportion of forward and backward responses was modeled by a cumulative Gaussian function using a Monte Carlo maximum-likelihood criteria as previously described and used in this current laboratory. Data were resampled randomly with replacement to generate multiples estimates of the mean and 95% confidence intervals [31,35,36]. Sample psychometric fitting for a subject is shown(Fig 3). The point of subject equality was defined as the mean of the Gaussian distribution, and represents the motion that elicits responses divided equally between the two possible responses. Deviations from a mean of zero represent an inertial ing velocity that is equal and opposite to the perceived direction of motion (vection). Threshold was defined as the sigma or width of the cumulative Gaussian distribution. The level of significance in the difference of the means of forward vs backward PSE defined as p < 0.01 [32].


Human Vection Perception Using Inertial Nulling and Certainty Estimation: The Effect of Migraine History.

Miller MA, O'Leary CJ, Allen PD, Crane BT - PLoS ONE (2015)

Data from a block of trials in an individual subject (subject 12, from Exp 2).In this block there was a 8s visual stimulus. Circles in the two upper panels are sized proportionally to the number of responses represented. A cumulative distribution function (CDF) was calculated from each data set as a method for determining the mean (bias) and sigma (threshold) of inertial motion detection for each test condition. In this subject, the CDF had a significant shift towards the right when looming VFM was presented (top panel, dashed curve) when compared with receding VFM (middle panel, solid curve). Thus for when there was no inertial motion, looming VFM was reported as forward self-motion. Each CDF was fit to the data 2,000x after being randomly resampled prior to each fit. The histograms of these fits are shown in the bottom panel which demonstrates a significant difference between the two conditions based on no overlap between the curves.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4539192&req=5

pone.0135335.g003: Data from a block of trials in an individual subject (subject 12, from Exp 2).In this block there was a 8s visual stimulus. Circles in the two upper panels are sized proportionally to the number of responses represented. A cumulative distribution function (CDF) was calculated from each data set as a method for determining the mean (bias) and sigma (threshold) of inertial motion detection for each test condition. In this subject, the CDF had a significant shift towards the right when looming VFM was presented (top panel, dashed curve) when compared with receding VFM (middle panel, solid curve). Thus for when there was no inertial motion, looming VFM was reported as forward self-motion. Each CDF was fit to the data 2,000x after being randomly resampled prior to each fit. The histograms of these fits are shown in the bottom panel which demonstrates a significant difference between the two conditions based on no overlap between the curves.
Mentions: For the PSE trials, the proportion of forward and backward responses was modeled by a cumulative Gaussian function using a Monte Carlo maximum-likelihood criteria as previously described and used in this current laboratory. Data were resampled randomly with replacement to generate multiples estimates of the mean and 95% confidence intervals [31,35,36]. Sample psychometric fitting for a subject is shown(Fig 3). The point of subject equality was defined as the mean of the Gaussian distribution, and represents the motion that elicits responses divided equally between the two possible responses. Deviations from a mean of zero represent an inertial ing velocity that is equal and opposite to the perceived direction of motion (vection). Threshold was defined as the sigma or width of the cumulative Gaussian distribution. The level of significance in the difference of the means of forward vs backward PSE defined as p < 0.01 [32].

Bottom Line: This study examines the effect of the duration of visual field movement (VFM) on the perceived strength of self-motion using an inertial ing (IN) and a magnitude estimation technique based on the certainty that motion occurred (certainty estimation, CE).For the IN method, an inertial ing motion was delivered during this final 1s of the visual stimulus, and subjects reported the direction of perceived self-motion during this final second.Together, these results suggest that vection may be measured by both CE and IN techniques with good correlation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, 14642, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Vection is an illusory perception of self-motion that can occur when visual motion fills the majority of the visual field. This study examines the effect of the duration of visual field movement (VFM) on the perceived strength of self-motion using an inertial ing (IN) and a magnitude estimation technique based on the certainty that motion occurred (certainty estimation, CE). These techniques were then used to investigate the association between migraine diagnosis and the strength of perceived vection. Visual star-field stimuli consistent with either looming or receding motion were presented for 1, 4, 8 or 16s. Subjects reported the perceived direction of self-motion during the final 1s of the stimulus. For the IN method, an inertial ing motion was delivered during this final 1s of the visual stimulus, and subjects reported the direction of perceived self-motion during this final second. The magnitude of inertial motion was varied adaptively to determine the point of subjective equality (PSE) at which forward or backward responses were equally likely. For the CE trials the same range of VFM was used but without inertial motion and subjects rated their certainty of motion on a scale of 0-100. PSE determined with the IN technique depended on direction and duration of visual motion and the CE technique showed greater certainty of perceived vection with longer VFM duration. A strong correlation between CE and IN techniques was present for the 8s stimulus. There was appreciable between-subject variation in both CE and IN techniques and migraine was associated with significantly increased perception of self-motion by CE and IN at 8 and 16s. Together, these results suggest that vection may be measured by both CE and IN techniques with good correlation. The results also suggest that susceptibility to vection may be higher in subjects with a history of migraine.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus