ArticlePloS one2026
Differences in perceived travel distance from central versus peripheral optic flow are the same when standing and walking.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The continuously evolving ways in which people move challenges our ability to process self-motion. Previous research from our lab has shown that when seated, optic flow presented in the far periphery results in people feeling they moved further than when the same motion was presented over the full field or in the central field only. The literature is mixed on the relative weightings of visual and non-visual cues when estimating travel distance, and it is unknown how non-visual cues might affect the use of optic flow in the far periphery. Here, we used a large-field edgeless display to visually "move" participants. Participants were either (i) physically stationary (visual-only condition), (ii) performing a blindfolded walking task on a treadmill (blindfolded walking condition), or (iii) visually "moving" while walking on a treadmill (visual-and-treadmill condition). Optic flow simulating forward self-motion was presented either full field, in the central field (inside 40°), or in the far periphery (outside 180°). Participants estimated travel distances by stopping at the location of a previously seen target (Move-To-Target Task) or adjusting a target to indicate the distance of a previous movement (Adjust-Target Task). In the Move-To-Target task, peripheral optic flow led to higher gains (perceived travel distance/ actual travel distance) compared to the central field and full-field conditions during both the visual-only and visual-and-treadmill conditions. In the same task, the blindfolded walking condition also led to higher gains than the visual-only or visual-and-treadmill conditions. In the Adjust-Target task, there were no significant differences between conditions. There were also no interaction effects in either task between field-of-view, and whether participants were standing or walking. This implies that the high sensitivity to optic flow in the far periphery is a general feature of perceptual odometry even when integrating non-visual cues with visual 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.