ArticlePloS one2020
Cue-dependent effects of VR experience on motion-in-depth sensitivity.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Trial fMRI Decoding of 3D Motion with Stereoscopic and Perspective Cues.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
- Optimal Estimation of Local Motion-in-Depth with Naturalistic Stimuli.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Hierarchical computation of 3D motion across macaque areas MT and FST.Cell reports · 2023Article
- Task feedback suggests a post-perceptual component to serial dependence.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Walking humans and running mice: perception and neural encoding of optic flow during self-motion.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Image statistics determine the integration of visual cues to motion-in-depth.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Perspective Cues Make Eye-specific Contributions to 3-D Motion Perception.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2021Article
- Motion-in-depth effects on interceptive timing errors in an immersive environment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Perception and Motion in Real and Virtual Environments: A Narrative Review of Autism Spectrum Disorders.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- Sensorimotor Research Utilising Immersive Virtual Reality: A Pilot Study with Children and Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders.Brain sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The visual system exploits multiple signals, including monocular and binocular cues, to determine the motion of objects through depth. In the laboratory, sensitivity to different three-dimensional (3D) motion cues varies across observers and is often weak for binocular cues. However, laboratory assessments may reflect factors beyond inherent perceptual sensitivity. For example, the appearance of weak binocular sensitivity may relate to extensive prior experience with two-dimensional (2D) displays in which binocular cues are not informative. Here we evaluated the impact of experience on motion-in-depth (MID) sensitivity in a virtual reality (VR) environment. We tested a large cohort of observers who reported having no prior VR experience and found that binocular cue sensitivity was substantially weaker than monocular cue sensitivity. As expected, sensitivity was greater when monocular and binocular cues were presented together than in isolation. Surprisingly, the addition of motion parallax signals appeared to cause observers to rely almost exclusively on monocular cues. As observers gained experience in the VR task, sensitivity to monocular and binocular cues increased. Notably, most observers were unable to distinguish the direction of MID based on binocular cues above chance level when tested early in the experiment, whereas most showed statistically significant sensitivity to binocular cues when tested late in the experiment. This result suggests that observers may discount binocular cues when they are first encountered in a VR environment. Laboratory assessments may thus underestimate the sensitivity of inexperienced observers to MID, especially for binocular cues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.