Literature DB >> 10889937

Visually directed walking to briefly glimpsed targets is not biased toward fixation location.

J W Philbeck1.   

Abstract

When observers indicate the magnitude of a previously viewed spatial extent by walking without vision to each endpoint, there is little evidence of the perceptual collapse in depth associated with some other methods (e.g. visual matching). One explanation is that both walking and matching are perceptually mediated, but that the perceived layout is task-dependent. In this view, perceived depth beyond 2-3 m is typically distorted by an equidistance effect, whereby the egocentric distances of nonfixated portions of the depth interval are perceptually pulled toward the fixated point. Action-based responses, however, recruit processes that enhance perceptual accuracy as the stimulus configuration is inspected. This predicts that walked indications of egocentric distance performed without vision should exhibit equidistance effects at short exposure durations, but become more accurate at longer exposures. In this paper, two experiments demonstrate that in a well-lit environment there is substantial perceptual anisotropy at near distances (3-5 m), but that walked indications of egocentric distance are quite accurate after brief glimpses (150 ms), even when the walking target is not directly fixated. Longer exposures do not increase accuracy. The results are clearly inconsistent with the task-dependent information processing explanation, but do not rule out others in which perception mediates both walking and visual matches.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10889937     DOI: 10.1068/p3036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perception        ISSN: 0301-0066            Impact factor:   1.490


  17 in total

1.  Dissociation between location and shape in visual space.

Authors:  Jack M Loomis; John W Philbeck; Pavel Zahorik
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Perceived slant of binocularly viewed large-scale surfaces: a common model from explicit and implicit measures.

Authors:  Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Inaccurate representation of the ground surface beyond a texture boundary.

Authors:  Bing Wu; Zijiang J He; Teng Leng Ooi
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.490

4.  Does perceived angular declination contribute to perceived optical slant on level ground?

Authors:  Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Misperception of exocentric directions in auditory space.

Authors:  Joeanna C Arthur; John W Philbeck; Jesse Sargent; Stephen Dopkins
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2008-06-13

6.  Environmental surfaces and the compression of perceived visual space.

Authors:  Zheng Bian; George J Andersen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 7.  Action potential influences spatial perception: Evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception.

Authors:  Jessica K Witt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-08

8.  The underestimation of egocentric distance: evidence from frontal matching tasks.

Authors:  Zhi Li; John Phillips; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Gaze direction and the extraction of egocentric distance.

Authors:  Daniel A Gajewski; Courtney P Wallin; John W Philbeck
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Tachistoscopic exposure and masking of real three-dimensional scenes.

Authors:  Stephen Pothier; John Philbeck; David Chichka; Daniel A Gajewski
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.