Literature DB >> 2142201

Accuracy of judging time to arrival: effects of modality, trajectory, and gender.

W Schiff1, R Oldak.   

Abstract

Observers' accuracy in using time-to-arrival (Ta) information was examined in 4 experiments. The issues included use of visual vs. acoustic Ta information, use of acoustic Ta information by blind Ss, use of Ta information controlling for velocity, and effects of angle of approach and arrival time on judgment accuracy. Visual information was used more efficiently than audiovisual and auditory information. Blind Ss used acoustical approach information as accurately as sighted Ss used visual information. Radial, oblique, and transverse orientations were used to examine effects of approach trajectory. Radial events were underestimated, whereas the more accurate transverse approach was likely to be overestimated. Oblique angle events yielded intermediate accuracies implying a spatiotemporal anisotropy. Women underestimated Ta more than did men. Possible reasons for Ss' judgment accuracy, including linear vs. nonlinear optical changes and relation to spatial skills and experience, were discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2142201     DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.16.2.303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  35 in total

1.  Auditory looming perception in rhesus monkeys.

Authors:  Asif A Ghazanfar; John G Neuhoff; Nikos K Logothetis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-11-12       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Sex differences in visuospatial working memory: components of cognitive processing.

Authors:  S Loring-Meier; D F Halpern
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-09

3.  Optical magnification as event information.

Authors:  G Kebeck; K Landwehr
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  1992

4.  Common principle of guidance by echolocation and vision.

Authors:  D N Lee; F R van der Weel; T Hitchcock; E Matejowsky; J D Pettigrew
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 1.836

5.  Predicting the position of moving audiovisual stimuli.

Authors:  Steven L Prime; Laurence R Harris
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Eye movements influence estimation of time-to-contact in prediction motion.

Authors:  Simon J Bennett; Robin Baures; Heiko Hecht; Nicolas Benguigui
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Sex differences in dynamic spatial ability: the unsolved question of performance factors.

Authors:  María José Contreras; Victor J Rubio; Daniel Peña; Roberto Colom; José Santacreu
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-03

8.  How do vision and hearing impact pedestrian time-to-arrival judgments?

Authors:  JulieAnne M Roper; Shirin E Hassan
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  Brain activity during time to contact estimation: an EEG study.

Authors:  Asieh Daneshi; Hamed Azarnoush; Farzad Towhidkhah; Delphine Bernardin; Jocelyn Faubert
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  Steering by echolocation: a paradigm of ecological acoustics.

Authors:  D N Lee; J A Simmons; P A Saillant; F Bouffard
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 1.836

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.