Literature DB >> 14999282

Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information.

Bing Wu1, Teng Leng Ooi, Zijiang J He.   

Abstract

By itself, the absolute distance of an object cannot be accurately judged beyond 2-3 m (refs 1-3). Yet, when it is viewed with reference to a flat terrain, humans accurately judge the absolute distance of the object up to 20 m, an ability that is important for various actions. Here we provide evidence that this is accomplished by integrating local patches of ground information into a global surface reference frame. We first show that restricting an observer's visual field of view to the local ground area around the target leads to distance underestimation, indicating that a relatively wide expanse of the ground surface is required for accurate distance judgement. Second, as proof of surface integration, we show that even with the restricted view, the observer can accurately judge absolute distance by scanning local patches of the ground surface, bit by bit, from near to far, but not in the reverse direction. This finding also reveals that the surface integration process uses the near-ground-surface information as a foundation for surface representation, and extrapolation to the far ground surface around the target for accurate absolute distance computation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14999282     DOI: 10.1038/nature02350

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  53 in total

1.  What a car does to your perception: Distance evaluations differ from within and outside of a car.

Authors:  Birte Moeller; Hartmut Zoppke; Christian Frings
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-06

2.  The Effects of Age and Set Size on the Fast Extraction of Egocentric Distance.

Authors:  Daniel A Gajewski; Courtney P Wallin; John W Philbeck
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2016-01-22

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Losing sight of the bigger picture: peripheral field loss compresses representations of space.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; John C Hicks; Lei Hao; Kathleen A Turano
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2007-08-10       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Mental concatenation of perceptually and cognitively specified depth to represent locations in near space.

Authors:  Bing Wu; Roberta L Klatzky; Damion Shelton; George Stetten
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-08-24       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  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

8.  Perceived relative distance on the ground affected by the selection of depth information.

Authors:  Jun Wu; Zijiang J He; Teng Leng Ooi
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2008-05

9.  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

10.  Angular declination and the dynamic perception of egocentric distance.

Authors:  Daniel A Gajewski; John W Philbeck; Philip W Wirtz; David Chichka
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.