Differences in perceived travel distance from central versus peripheral optic flow are the same when standing and walking

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-05-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348803
Primary Topic
Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Differences in perceived travel distance from central versus peripheral optic flow are the same when standing and walking

Ambika Bansal, Robert S. Allison, Hongyi Guo, Laurence R. Harris
PLoS ONE
Visual perception and processing mechanisms
article

Differences in perceived travel distance from central versus peripheral optic flow are the same when standing and walking

Ambika Bansal, Robert S. Allison, Hongyi Guo, Laurence R. Harris
article en

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.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(5)
York University (CA)
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Visual perception and processing mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.