Literature DB >> 22056519

Different motion cues are used to estimate time-to-arrival for frontoparallel and looming trajectories.

Finnegan J Calabro1, Scott A Beardsley, Lucia M Vaina.   

Abstract

Estimation of time-to-arrival for moving objects is critical to obstacle interception and avoidance, as well as to timing actions such as reaching and grasping moving objects. The source of motion information that conveys arrival time varies with the trajectory of the object raising the question of whether multiple context-dependent mechanisms are involved in this computation. To address this question we conducted a series of psychophysical studies to measure observers' performance on time-to-arrival estimation when object trajectory was specified by angular motion ("gap closure" trajectories in the frontoparallel plane), looming (colliding trajectories, TTC) or both (passage courses, TTP). We measured performance of time-to-arrival judgments in the presence of irrelevant motion, in which a perpendicular motion vector was added to the object trajectory. Data were compared to models of expected performance based on the use of different components of optical information. Our results demonstrate that for gap closure, performance depended only on the angular motion, whereas for TTC and TTP, both angular and looming motion affected performance. This dissociation of inputs suggests that gap closures are mediated by a separate mechanism than that used for the detection of time-to-collision and time-to-passage. We show that existing models of TTC and TTP estimation make systematic errors in predicting subject performance, and suggest that a model which weights motion cues by their relative time-to-arrival provides a better account of performance.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22056519      PMCID: PMC3390210          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.09.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  16 in total

1.  Does the brain model Newton's laws?

Authors:  J McIntyre; M Zago; A Berthoz; F Lacquaniti
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Time-to-contact estimation of accelerated stimuli is based on first-order information.

Authors:  Nicolas Benguigui; Hubert Ripoll; Michael P Broderick
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Global and local contributions to the optical specification of time to contact: observer sensitivity to composite tau.

Authors:  Reinoud J Bootsma; Cathy M Craig
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.490

4.  A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision.

Authors:  D N Lee
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time to contact.

Authors:  J R Tresilian
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

7.  Optical specification of time-to-passage: observers' sensitivity to global tau.

Authors:  M K Kaiser; L Mowafy
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Visual information about time-to-collision between two objects.

Authors:  R J Bootsma; R R Oudejans
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Time-to-passage judgments in nonconstant optical flow fields.

Authors:  M K Kaiser; H Hecht
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1995-08

10.  Visual timing in hitting an accelerating ball.

Authors:  D N Lee; D S Young; P E Reddish; S Lough; T M Clayton
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1983-05
View more
  4 in total

1.  Differential cortical activation during the perception of moving objects along different trajectories.

Authors:  Finnegan J Calabro; Scott A Beardsley; Lucia M Vaina
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Flow parsing and heading perception show similar dependence on quality and quantity of optic flow.

Authors:  Andrew J Foulkes; Simon K Rushton; Paul A Warren
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 3.558

3.  Scale Changes Provide an Alternative Cue For the Discrimination of Heading, But Not Object Motion.

Authors:  Finnegan J Calabro; Lucia Maria Vaina
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-05-27

4.  Judging time-to-passage of looming sounds: Evidence for the use of distance-based information.

Authors:  Rosa Mariana Silva; João Lamas; Carlos César Silva; Yann Coello; Sandra Mouta; Jorge Almeida Santos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.