Agreement between indirect measures of perceived distance

Gogel, Walter C.; Loomis, Jack M.; Newman, Nancy J.; Sharkey, Thomas J.

doi:10.3758/bf03207134

Cited by 73 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Responses to the near and middle targets converged on locations somewhat farther than the physical target, whereas responses to the far target converged upon a location somewhat closer than the physical target. This pattern oferrors is consistent with the results of previous experiments conducted under reduced-cue conditions, and it has been attributed to perceptual error (e.g., Foley, 1977;Gogel, Loomis, Newman, & Sharkey, 1985;Gogel & Tietz, 1973.…”

Section: Lights Offsupporting

confidence: 81%

Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action

Philbeck

Loomis

Beall

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weprovide experimental evidence that perceived location is an invariant in the control of action, by showing that different actions are directed toward a single visually specified location in space (corresponding to the putative perceived location) and that this single location, although specified by a fixed physical target, varies with the availability of information about the distance of that target. Observers in two conditions varying in the availability of egocentric distance cues viewed targets at 1.5, 3.1, or 6.0 m and then attempted to walk to the target with eyes closed using one ofthree paths; the path was not specified until after vision was occluded. The observers stopped at about the same location regardless of the path taken, providing evidence that action was being controlled by some invariant, ostensibly visually perceived location. That it was indeed perceived location was indicated by the manipulation of information about target distance-the trajectories in the full-cues condition converged near the physical target locations, whereas those in the reduced-cues condition converged at locations consistent with the usual perceptual errors found when distance cues are impoverished.

show abstract

Section: Lights Offsupporting

confidence: 81%

Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action

Philbeck

Loomis

Beall

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example of triangulation is the use of binocular convergence in the perception of distance; sensing of the vergences of the two eyes, both fixated on a near target, is used by the visual system to estimate the target's egocentric distance (Foley, 1980). Gogel (1974Gogel ( , 1982 was probably the first to develop a triangulation method for measuring perceived egocentric distance (see also Gogel, 1990Gogel, , 1993Gogel, Loomis, Newman, & Sharkey, 1985). His method, depicted in Figure lB, involves movement of the observer's head and the observer's judgment of any apparent movement of the target that there might be.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation.

Fukusima¹,

Loomis²,

Silva³

1997

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

128

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two triangulation methods for measuring perceived egocentric distance were examined. In the triangulation-by-pointing procedure, the observer views a target at some distance and, with eyes closed, attempts to point continuously at the target while traversing a path that passes by it. In the triangulation-by-walking procedure, the observer views a target and, with eyes closed, traverses a path that is oblique to the target; on command from the experimenter, the observer turns and walks toward the target. Two experiments using pointing and 3 using walking showed that perceived distance, averaged over observers, was accurate out to 15 m under full-cue conditions. For target distances between 15 and 25 m, the evidence indicates slight perceptual underestimation. Results also show that observers, on average, were accurate in imaginally updating the locations of previously viewed targets.The term visual space (or visually perceived space) refers to a perceptual representation of the immediate physical environment that exists independently of any of the particular spatial behaviors it helps to control. Much vision research has been devoted to establishing the functional properties of visual space and the mechanisms that underlie it. A major goal of such research has been to characterize the mapping from physical to visual space under different conditions of information availability, but ultimately the goal must be to predict visual space solely in terms of its sensory inputs and internal determinants (e.g., intrinsic noise, observer assumptions, etc.).Because visual direction is perceived accurately, most space perception research has examined the perception of egocentric distance (i-e., the distance from the object to the observer) and the perception of exocentric distance (i.e., the distance between two targets lying in the same visual direction or, more generally, the distance between any two locations). Because we believe that the perception of egocentric Gogel, 1977), our focus here is on the former.It generally is accepted that when visual cues to distance are reduced greatly, egocentric distance is misperceived (e.g., Baird, 1970;Da Silva, 1985;Foley, 1977Foley, ,1980Foley & Held, 1972;Gogel, 1974;Holway & Boring, 1941;Kiinnapas, 1968;Philbeck & Loomis, 1997;Sedgwick, 1986). Under "full-cue" conditions, in which a stimulus-rich environment is viewed under good illumination, however, there is little agreement about whether perception is accurate, mainly because of the diversity of findings stemming from different experimental methods. With respect to egocentric distance, much of the research conducted under full-cue conditions suggests that perceived distance is nearly linear in physical distance and appropriately scaled, at least for targets within 20 m (e.g., verbal reports, Da Silva, 1985;Sedgwick, 1986;Teghtsoonian & Teghtsoonian, 1969, 1970 blind walking to previewed targets, Corlett, Patla, & Williams, 1985;Elliott, 1986Elliott, , 1987Elliott, Jones, & Gray, 1990;Loomis, Da Silva, Fujita, & Fukusima, 1992...

show abstract

“…Action based measures of perceived egocentric distance include ball throwing, blind walking, triangulation methods, and more recently a measure based on a response in 3-D space consisting of blind walking and a pointing gesture by the hand (Ooi, Wu, & He, 2001). Non-action based measures include verbal report of perceived distance, an estimate of perceived distance derived from distal size judgments by way of size-distance invariance (e.g., Gogel, Loomis, Newman, & Sharkey, 1985), and estimates of distance derived from judgments of shape by way of the coupling observed between perceived shape and perceived distance (Ooi, Wu, & He, in press;Wu, Ooi, & He, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Energy Expenditure Affect the Perception of Egocentric Distance? A Failure to Replicate Experiment 1 of Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003)

Hutchison

Loomis

2006

Span. J. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a series of recent studies, Proffitt and his colleagues have reported that the perceived distance to a target is influenced by the energy expenditure associated with any action, such as walking or throwing, for spanning the distance to the target. In particular, Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003) reported that wearing a heavy backpack caused verbal reports of distance to increase. We conducted a study to determine whether three responses dependent on perceived distance (verbal report of distance, blind walking, and estimates of object size) are influenced by the backpack manipulation. In two experiments, one involving a between-participants design and the other involving a within-participants design, we found that none of the three responses were influenced by the wearing of a heavy backpack. Keywords: distance perception, energy expenditureEn una serie reciente de trabajos, Proffitt y sus colegas informaron de que la distancia a la que se percibe una estimulación diana se ve afectada por el gasto de energía asociado a la realización de cualquier acción, como andar o lanzar un objeto, que pueda realizarse para cubrir la distancia hasta la estimulación diana. Concretamente, Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton y Epstein (2003) afirmaron que llevar una mochila pesada hizo que se incrementasen los informes verbales sobre la distancia. Realizamos un estudio para verificar si tres respuestas que dependen de la distancia percibida (informe verbal de distancia, andar a ciegas y estimaciones del tamaño de un objeto) son afectadas por el uso de la mochila. En dos experimentos, uno con un diseño inter-participantes y el otro con un diseño intra-participantes, encontramos que ninguna de las tres respuestas era afectada por llevar una mochila pesada. Palabras clave: percepción de la distancia, gasto de energía

show abstract

Agreement between indirect measures of perceived distance

Cited by 73 publications

References 28 publications

Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action

Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action

Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation.

Does Energy Expenditure Affect the Perception of Egocentric Distance? A Failure to Replicate Experiment 1 of Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About