Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
When people move there are many visual and non-visual cues that can inform them about their movement. Simulating self motion in a virtual-reality environment thus needs to take these non-visual cues into account in addition to the normal high-quality visual display. Here we examine the contribution of visual and non-visual cues to our perception of self-motion. The perceived distance of self motion can be estimated from the visual flow field, physical forces or the act of moving. On its own, passive visual motion is a very effective cue to self motion, and evokes a perception of self motion that is related to the actual motion in a way that varies with acceleration. Passive physical motion turns out to be a particularly potent self motion cue: not only does it evoke an exaggerated sensation of motion, but it also tends to dominate other cues. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2002 | 10.1007/s100550200008 | Virtual Reality |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
visual and non-visual cues to motion,self-motion,proprioception,visual cues | Sensory cue,Computer vision,Virtual reality,Simulation,Computer science,Artificial intelligence,Proprioception,Kinetic depth effect,Optical flow,Perception,Sensation,Visual perception | Journal |
Volume | Issue | Citations |
6 | 2 | 26 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
2.77 | 7 | 8 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laurence R. Harris | 1 | 101 | 10.88 |
| Michael Jenkin | 2 | 90 | 8.86 |
| Daniel C. Zikovitz | 3 | 42 | 5.49 |
| Fara Redlick | 4 | 29 | 3.61 |
| P. M. Jaekl | 5 | 44 | 4.77 |
| Urszula Jasiobedzka | 6 | 87 | 7.69 |
| H. L. Jenkin | 7 | 45 | 5.73 |
| robert s allison | 8 | 217 | 29.68 |