de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Poster

Influence of visual and body rotation cues on helicopter stabilization

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons83802

Berger,  DR
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84253

Terzibas,  C
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons83839

Bülthoff,  HH
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Berger, D., Terzibas, C., & Bülthoff, H. (2007). Influence of visual and body rotation cues on helicopter stabilization. Poster presented at 8th International Multisensory Research Forum (IMRF 2007), Sydney, Australia.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-CCE3-5
Abstract
This study investigated the role of specific visual cues (optic flow and/or horizon) and body cues associated with whole-body rotation in a helicopter stabilization task. The experiment was performed on a Stewart motion platform equipped with a projection screen. Participants were asked to stabilize a simulated helicopter at a target position under different cue conditions. The target position and the helicopter were represented by spheres on an invisible ground plane below the observer. Participants controlled the pitch and roll of the helicopter, while yaw rotations and height were controlled automatically. Despite large individual differences, we found that body motion cues were the most effective cues for stabilization, followed by horizon cues and finally optic flow. In general, the combination of several cues improved the stabilization further. This supports the hypothesis that in general different cues are integrated for stabilization. However, some participants demonstrated poorer stabilization capabilities in some conditions when more cues were added. In particular, for those participants, it was typically the case that stabilization with only a horizon was better than stabilization with a horizon plus optic flow. We argue that those participants might change their control strategy depending upon the available cues.