Social Inhibition of Vection

doi:10.4236/psych.2013.48088

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2013. Vol.4, No.8, 619-621

Published Online August 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.48088

Social Inhibition of Vection*

Takeharu Seno1,2,3

1Faculty of Design, Kyushu Unive rsity, Fukuoka, Japan

2Institute for Advanced Study, Kyushu University, F u kuoka, Japan

3Research Center for Appli ed Perceptual Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Jap a n

Email: [email protected]

Received May 31st, 2013; revised Ju ne 29th, 2013; accepted July 15th, 2013

bution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the social interaction can affect vection strength. We

compared the strength of self-motion perception (vection) with and without an audience (two people in

addition to the participant) present during stimulus presentation. We presented the optical flow (dots’ ex-

pansion) for 40 seconds and obtained vection duration and latency and we also obtained the subjective

strength of vection via magnitude estimation. We found that vection was inhibited by the presence of an

audience. We speculate that audience presence might distract the attention of participants from the vection,

depriving them of the attentional resources inhibited vection.

Keywords: Vection; Social Inhibition; Audience

Introduction

Self-motion perception as determined solely by visual cues is

called “vection” (e.g. Fischer & Kornmüller, 1930). Stimulus

attributes for the effective induction of vection have been ex-

tensively studied (Seno et al., 2009). Relationships between

vection and attention (Seno et al., 2011a), time perception

(Seno et al., 20011b), memory (Seno et al., 2013), the effect of

alcohol consumption (Seno & Nakamura, in press), cognitive

bias (Palmisano & Chan, 2004) and quantity perception (Seno

et al., 2011c) have also been reported, as well as relationships

between vection and multiple modalities (e.g. Riecke et al.,

2009), personality attributes of observers (Seno et al., 2011d),

and aging and development (Haibach et al., 2009; Shirai et al,

2012). Furthermore vection enhanced a type of visual illusion

(Fukuda & Seno, 2012) and the semantic meaning could affect

vection strength (Seno & Fukuda, 2012). Multiple aspects of

the human mind are involved in vection. One important issue

that has not been addressed is the impact of social psychologi-

cal factors on vection. We focused on social facilitation and

inhibition of vection.

An “audience effect” has been established in the field of so-

cial psychology (Travis, 1925), in which the existence of an

audience can facilitate or inhibit the performance of a partici-

pant. Even when the presence of an audience is not logically

related to the execution of a task, audience presence can modu-

late the performance of a participant. In most cases, the domi-

nant task outcome is facilitated by the presence of an audience,

and the non-dominant task outcome is inhibited (review in Za-

jonc, 1965). It has been also reported that arousal levels are

increased by audience presence (Mason & Brady, 1964). Con-

sidering previous studies, we predicted that vection could be

modulated by audience presence. In our previous vection stud-

ies, vection was reported in 70% of all stimulus presentation

period (Seno et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d), and was thus

the dominant task outcome. We predicted that perception of

vection would be facilitated and that the duration of vection

would be elongated by audience presence. In this case, our

study would be the first to report that the perception of vection

can be altered by social context.

Method

Participants

Eleven adult volunteers participated in the experiment. The

volunteers were either graduate or undergraduate students (7

females and 4 males; aged 20 to 25 years) with no reported

visual or vestibular abnormalities. They previously attended

some vection experiments. Thus the task of reporting vection

was easy and accustomed task for them.

Apparatus

Stimuli were generated and controlled by a computer

(MB543J/A, Apple) and presented on a plasma display (3D

Viera, 50-inch, Panasonic, with 1024 × 768 pixel resolution at a

60 Hz refresh rate). The experiment was conducted in a dark

chamber.

Stimuli

We used an expanding optical flow pattern, which was cre-

ated by positioning 16,000 dots at random inside a simulated

cube and moving the observer’s viewpoint to simulate a for-

ward self-motion of 16 m/s. The stimuli were identical to those

used by Seno et al. (2010), and the duration of the stimulus was

*The author was supported by Funds for the Development of Human Re-

sources in Science and Technology (Japan Science and Technology Agency)

This work is supported by Program to Disseminate Tenure Tracking System,

MEXT, Japan.

T. SENO

fixed at 40 seconds. The stimuli were displayed on a 50-inch

plasma display with a viewing distance of 57 cm.

Participants

Eleven adult volunteers participated in the experiment. The

volunteers were either graduate or undergraduate students (7

females and 4 males; aged 20 to 25 years) with no reported

visual or vestibular abnormalities. They previously attended

some vection experiments. Thus the task of reporting vection

was easy and accustomed task for them.

Audiences

Two adult male graduate students. They were 22 and 23

years old and did not know the purpose of this experiment.

They kept watching the participant during the stimulus presen-

tation. They stood on the right and left sides of the participants

with 60 cm distances. They did not speak anything.

Procedure

The participants completed the task either alone or in the

presence of an audience, which consisted of two third persons.

The audience stood beside the observer and watched their per-

formance througho ut the experiment (Figure 1).

Eight trials were conducted for each condition, and partici-

pants were asked to press a button when they perceived self-

motion. At the end of each trial, the participants were instructed

to rate the subjective strength of vection using a scale from 0

(no vection) to 100 (very strong vection). The participants re-

ported these values using a keyboard. The with- and without-

audience conditions were counterbalanced over the eleven par-

ticipants. The participants were given complete instructions

before the experiment began.

Result

The results were shown in Figure 2. Substantial vection was

reported in both the with- and without-audience conditions.

Latency and duration of vection was shorter and longer, respec-

tively, in the without-audience condition. The reported values

were larger in the without-audience condition than in the with-

audience condition. T-tests revealed significant differences be-

tween the with- and without-audiences conditions for all three

measures (latency, t(10) = 3.47, p < .01; duration, t(10) = 2.29,

p < .05; magnitude, t(10 ) = 2.18, p = .05).

Discussion

We concluded that the strength of vection was larger in the

without-audience condition, and thus, contrary to our prediction,

found evidence for the social inhibition of vection by an audi-

ence. Even though perception of vection was the dominant task

outcome it was inhibited by audience presence. In subjective

reports, some participants said that their attention had been

distracted from the vection stimulus by the presence of an au-

dience. Vection indication requires attentional resources (Seno

et al., 2011a). Thus, the presence of an audience during the task

may be distract in g.

Additionally, we conducted an informal observation with

three naïve participants in which we placed two cardboard

boxes instead of audiences beside the participants. Then vection

Figure 1.

A schematic illust ration of the enviro nment of experiment (with-

audience condition).

Figure 2.

The latency, duration, and magnitude of vection in

the with- and without-audience c o n ditions.

620

T. SENO

strength was not changed in that condition. Thus the effect of

being things was not obtained. The audience of human was the

critical factor for inhibition of vection.

We also should consider the gender effect of the audience. In

this study, we employed two male audiences. In the future

study, all variations of male and female audiences should be

examined. We examined only the case of two male audiences.

This was the limitation of our study, we should note. In future,

further examination of various types of audiences should be

examined.

We conclude that, social context (presence of an audience)

can affect vection strength. This could be an important demon-

stration of an instance in which social context can alter percep-

tion, although further research is necessary to clarify this rela-

tionship.

REFERENCES

Fukuda, H., & Seno, T. (2012). Healin’ Groovy: Movement affects the

appearance of the Healing Grid Illusion. P erception, 41, 243-246.

doi:10.1068/p7132

Haibach, P., Slobounov, S., & Newell, K. (2009). Egomotion and vec-

tion in young and elderly adults. Gerontology, 55, 637-643.

doi:10.1159/000235816

Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light

the worker: Causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822

Mason, J. W., & Brady, J. V. (1964). The sensitivity of psycho endo-

crine system to social and physical environ ment. In P. H. Leiderman,

& D. Shapiro (Eds.), Psychob io lo g ic al ap pr oaches to social behavior.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Palmisano, S., & Chan, A. Y. C. (2004). Jitter and size effects on vec-

tion are immune to experimental instructions and demands. Percep-

tion, 33, 987-1000. doi:10.1068/p5242

Riecke, B. E., Valjamae, A., & Schulte-Pelkum, J. (2009). Moving

sounds enhance the visually-induced self-motion illusion (circular

vection) in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

(TAP), 6, Article 7. doi:10.1145/1498700.1498701

Seno T., & Nakamura S. (in Press) Alcohol consumption enhances

vection. Perception.

Seno, T., & Fukuda H. (2012) Stimulus meanings alter illusory self-

motion (vection). Experimental examination of the train illusion.

Seeing & Perceiving, 25, 631-645. doi:10.1163/18784763-00002394

Seno, T., Ito, H., & Sunaga, S. (2009). The object and background

hypothesis for vection. Vi sion Research, 49, 2973-2982.

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2009.09.017

Seno, T., Ito, H., & Sunaga, S. (2011b). Self-motion perception com-

presses time experienced in return travel. Perception, 40, 497-499.

doi:10.1068/p6885

Seno, T., Ito, H., & Sunaga, S. (2010). Vection after-effect from ex-

panding/contracting stimuli. Seeing & Perceiving, 23, 273-294.

doi:10.1163/187847510X532667

Seno, T., Ito, H., & Sunaga, S. (2011a). Attentional load inhibits vec-

tion. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73, 1467-1476.

doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0129-3

Seno, T., Kawabe T., Ito H., & Sunaga, S. (2013) Vection modulates

emotional valence of autobiographical episodic memories. Cognition,

126, 115-120. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.009

Seno, T., Taya, S., Ito, H., & Sunaga, S. (2011c). Mental number line in

depth revealed by vection. Perception, 40, 1241-1244.

doi:10.1068/p6965

Seno, T., Yamada, Y., & Ihaya, K. (2011d) Narcissistic people cannot

be moved easily by visual stimulation. Perception, 40, 1390-1392.

doi:10.1068/p7062

Shirai, N., Seno, T., & Morohashi, S. (2012). More rapid and stronger

vection can occur in elementary school children than in adults. Per-

ception, 41, 1399-1402. doi:10.1068/p7251

Travis, L. E. (1925). The effect of a small audience upon eye-hand

coordination. Jour na l o f Abnormal Social Psychology, 20, 142-146.

doi:10.1037/h0071311

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.

doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269