Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30353497›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2019

Vection strength increases with simulated eye-separation.

Stephen Palmisano, Rodney G Davies, Kevin R Brooks

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephen PalmisanoSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia. stephenp@uow.edu.au.
Rodney G DaviesSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.
Kevin R BrooksDepartment of Psychology and Perception and Action Research Centre, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research has previously shown that adding consistent stereoscopic information to self-motion displays can improve the vection in depth induced in physically stationary observers. In some past studies, the simulated eye-separation was always close to the observer's actual eye-separation, as the aim was to examine vection under ecological viewing conditions that provided consistent binocular and monocular self-motion information. The present study investigated whether large discrepancies between the observer's simulated and physical eye-separations would alter the vection-inducing potential of stereoscopic optic flow (either helping, hindering, or preventing the induction of vection). Our self-motion displays simulated eye-separations of 0 cm (the non-stereoscopic control), 3.25 cm (reduced from normal), 6.5 cm (approximately normal), and 13 cm (exaggerated relative to normal). The rated strength of vection in depth was found to increase systematically with the simulated eye-separation. While vection was the strongest in the 13-cm condition (stronger than even the 6.5-cm condition), the 3.25-cm condition still produced superior vection to the 0-cm control (i.e., it had significantly stronger vection ratings and shorter onset latencies). Perceptions of scene depth and object motion-in-depth speed were also found to increase with the simulated eye-separation. As expected based on the findings of previous studies, correlational analyses suggested that the stereoscopic advantage for vection (found for all of our non-zero eye-separation conditions) was due to the increase in perceived motion-in-depth.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDepth PerceptionFemaleHumansMaleMotion PerceptionOptic FlowPhotic StimulationYoung AdultBinocular visionMotion-in-depthOptic flowS3DStereopsisVection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.