Visual perception of collinearity

Cuijpers, Raymond H.; Kappers, Astrid M. L.; Koenderink, Jan J.

doi:10.3758/bf03194712

Cited by 36 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is comparable to that of Cuijpers et al (2002). On the other hand, the difference was fairly constant over different relative distances (with the exception of 2 observers who had a difference of zero when the relative distance was 1.0) and depended slightly on the separation angle.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…The angular deviations from veridical settings were then measured. The pattern of these deviations was found to depend on the task, leading Cuijpers et al (2002) to claim that there is no such thing as an invariant visual space, because the form of visual space is task dependent. Cuijpers et al's experiments (2000aCuijpers et al's experiments ( , 2000bCuijpers et al's experiments ( , 2001Cuijpers et al's experiments ( , 2002 were done with artificial light and concerned distances less than 4.5 m, with most pictorial depth information eliminated from the scene.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the parallelity task, we also had a third parameter-namely, the orientation of the reference rod. Relative distance and separation angle were chosen as parameters because, together, they can quite naturally give an indication of the positions of the objects with respect to the observer, and also because they were the major parameters in the experiments of Cuijpers et al (2000aCuijpers et al ( , 2000bCuijpers et al ( , 2002). Since we want to test whether a room full of depth information will change the structure of visual space, it is important to be able to use Cuijpers et al's data as a baseline for our measurements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Visual space under free viewing conditions

Doumen¹,

Kappers²,

Koenderink³

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual space under free viewing conditions

Doumen¹,

Kappers²,

Koenderink³

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…5C and 6C). It is also important to note that our test was based on relative simple geometry, whereas the brain may actually represent visual space in a more complex manner (Cuijpers et al 2002). Furthermore, we should emphasize that we have focused on only one important signal, the central representation of body translation, as an underlying basis for the updating errors, which is but one of a myriad of variables which might lead to errors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaze-Centered Updating of Remembered Visual Space During Active Whole-Body Translations

Pelt¹,

Medendorp²

2007

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Van Pelt S, Medendorp WP. Gaze-centered updating of remembered visual space during active whole-body translations. J Neurophysiol 97: 1209Neurophysiol 97: -1220Neurophysiol 97: , 2007. First published November 29, 2006; doi:10.1152/jn.00882.2006. Various cortical and sub-cortical brain structures update the gaze-centered coordinates of remembered stimuli to maintain an accurate representation of visual space across eyes rotations and to produce suitable motor plans. A major challenge for the computations by these structures is updating across eye translations. When the eyes translate, objects in front of and behind the eyes' fixation point shift in opposite directions on the retina due to motion parallax. It is not known if the brain uses gaze coordinates to compute parallax in the translational updating of remembered space or if it uses gaze-independent coordinates to maintain spatial constancy across translational motion. We tested this by having subjects view targets, flashed in darkness in front of or behind fixation, then translate their body sideways, and subsequently reach to the memorized target. Reach responses showed parallax-sensitive updating errors: errors increased with depth from fixation and reversed in lateral direction for targets presented at opposite depths from fixation. In a series of control experiments, we ruled out possible biasing factors such as the presence of a fixation light during the translation, the eyes accompanying the hand to the target, and the presence of visual feedback about hand position. Quantitative geometrical analysis confirmed that updating errors were better described by using gaze-centered than gaze-independent coordinates. We conclude that spatial updating for translational motion operates in gaze-centered coordinates. Neural network simulations are presented suggesting that the brain relies on ego-velocity signals and stereoscopic depth and direction information in spatial updating during self-motion.

show abstract

“…In the past decades, this assumption has been tested via studies in which the structure of visual space was investigated using a number of experimental methods, including distance matching (Meng & Sedgwick, 2001), orientation matching (Cuijpers, Kappers, & Koenderink, 2002), triangulation (Fukusima, Loomis, & Da Silva, 1997), pointing (Koenderink, van Doorn, Kappers, & Lappin, 2002), and direct testing of axioms (Koenderink, van Doorn, Kappers, & Todd, 2002;Todd, Oomes, Koenderink, & Kappers, 2001). The perceived relative orientation of two physid cally parallel bars at various positions in the visual field r depends on the nature of the visually perceived space.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The structure of frontoparallel haptic space is task dependent

Hermens

Kappers

Gielen

2006

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, we investigated the structure of frontoparallel haptic space. In the first experiment, we asked blindfolded participants to rotate a matching bar so that it felt parallel to the reference bar; the bars could be at various positions in the frontoparallel plane. Large systematic errors were observed, in which orientations that were perceived to be parallel were not physically parallel. In two subsequent experiments, we investigated the origin of these errors. In Experiment 2, we asked participants to verbally report the orientation of haptically presented bars. In this task, participants made errors that were considerably smaller than those made in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, we asked participants to set bars in a verbally instructed orientation, and they also made errors significantly participants to set bars in a verbally instructed orientation, and they also made errors significantly smaller than those observed in Experiment 1. The data suggest that the errors in the matching task originate from the transfer of the reference orientation to the matching-bar position.

show abstract

Visual perception of collinearity

Cited by 36 publications

References 31 publications

Visual space under free viewing conditions

Visual space under free viewing conditions

Gaze-Centered Updating of Remembered Visual Space During Active Whole-Body Translations

The structure of frontoparallel haptic space is task dependent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About