The relative effectiveness of the ground surface and other environmental surfaces (the ceiling and sidewalls) in determining perceived layout was investigated in five experiments and a real-world demonstration. In the first three experiments, two vertical or horizontal posts were positioned between two surfaces (ground and ceiling in all three experiments, left wall and right wall in Experiment1), and optical contact was manipulated so that the two surfaces provided contradictory information about the relative distances of the posts. Observers judged which of the two posts appeared to be closer. In Experiment 4, to control the height on the posts at which the distance judgments were made, a blue dot was attached to both vertical posts at varying heights and observers judged which dot appeared closer. In Experiment 5, the posts were replaced by two gray ellipses to eliminate the effects of the regular shape and texture. Our findings were that (1) among all four surfaces tested, observers showed a preference to respond according to the optical contact information provided by the ground surface-a ground dominance effect, (2) this effect did not depend on the height of the posts in the image, (3) as the scene was tilted away from a ground/ceiling orientation, the ground dominance effect decreased, and (4) this effect was not due to the location of the judgment.

The present study examined whether there was an age-related difference in judging egocentric distances. In 4 experiments both younger and older observers judged the physical distance of an object on a ground plane and reported their judgments by verbal report and by blind rope-pulling. Overall, we found that: (1) younger observers in general underestimated egocentric distance and showed foreshortening; (2) older observers judged more egocentric distance than younger observers and did not show foreshortening; (3) this age-related difference was not due to an age-related difference in scaling or output calibration (Experiment 2), the use of eye height information (Experiment 3), or the use of texture gradient information (Experiment 4). These results may be accounted for by differences in perceived slant of the ground surface or a greater reliance on pictorial cues with increased age.

Previously, we (Bian, Braunstein, & Andersen, 2005) reported a dominance effect of the ground plane over other environmental surfaces in determining the perceived relative distance of objects in 3-D scenes. In the present study, we conducted three experiments to investigate whether this ground dominance is due to inherent differences between ground and ceiling surfaces, or to the locations of these surfaces in the visual field. In Experiment 1, two vertical posts were positioned between a ground surface and a ceiling surface, and optical contact was manipulated so that the two surfaces provided contradictory information about the relative distances of the posts from the participant. The two surfaces were either both above, both below, or one above and one below fixation. In Experiment 2, only one surface was presented, either above, below, or at fixation. In Experiment 3, the posts were replaced by two red dots, and the eccentricity of the optical contact on the two surfaces was equated in each of five locations in the visual field. In all three experiments, participants judged which of the two objects appeared to be closer. Overall, we found a higher proportion of judgments consistent with a ground surface than with a ceiling surface in all locations, indicating that the ground dominance effect is mainly due to characteristics of the ground surface, with location in the visual field having only a minor effect.

The present study examined the limits of spatial attention while performing two driving relevant tasks that varied in depth. The first task was to maintain a fixed headway distance behind a lead vehicle that varied speed. The second task was to detect a light-change target in an array of lights located above the roadway. In Experiment 1 the light detection task required drivers to encode color and location. The results indicated that reaction time to detect a light-change target increased and accuracy decreased as a function of the horizontal location of the light-change target and as a function of the distance from the driver. In a second experiment the light change task was changed to a singleton search (detect the onset of a yellow light) and the workload of the car following task was systematically varied. The results of Experiment 2 indicated that RT increased as a function of task workload, the 2D position of the light-change target and the distance of the light-change target. A multiple regression analysis indicated that the effect of distance on light detection performance was not due to changes in the projected size of the light target. In Experiment 3 we found that the distance effect in detecting a light change could not be explained by the location of eye fixations. The results demonstrate that when drivers attend to a roadway scene attention is limited in three-dimensional space. These results have important implications for developing tests for assessing crash risk among drivers as well as the design of in vehicle technologies such as head-up displays.

The present study examined whether the compression of perceived visual space varies according to the type of environmental surface being viewed. To examine this issue, observers made exocentric distance judgments when viewing simulated 3D scenes. In 4 experiments, observers viewed ground and ceiling surfaces and performed either an L-shaped matching task (Experiments 1, 3, and 4) or a bisection task (Experiment 2). Overall, we found considerable compression of perceived exocentric distance on both ground and ceiling surfaces. However, the perceived exocentric distance was less compressed on a ground surface than on a ceiling surface. In addition, this ground surface advantage did not vary systematically as a function of the distance in the scene. These results suggest that the perceived visual space when viewing a ground surface is less compressed than the perceived visual space when viewing a ceiling surface and that the perceived layout of a surface varies as a function of the type of the surface.