The Influence of Ground Contact and Visible Horizon on Perception of Distance and Size under Severely Degraded Vision
In: Seeing and PerceivingSearch for other papers by Kristina M. Rand in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Margaret R. Tarampi in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Sarah H. Creem-Regehr in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by William B. Thompson in
Current site
Google Scholar
For low vision navigation, misperceiving the locations of hazards can have serious consequences. Potential sources of such misperceptions are hazards that are not visually associated with the ground plane, thus, depriving the viewer of important perspective cues for egocentric distance. In Experiment 1, we assessed absolute distance and size judgments to targets on stands under degraded vision conditions. Normally sighted observers wore blur goggles that severely reduced acuity and contrast, and viewed targets placed on either detectable or undetectable stands. Participants in the detectable stand condition demonstrated accurate distance judgments, whereas participants in the undetectable stand condition overestimated target distances. Similarly, the perceived size of targets in the undetectable stand condition was judged to be significantly larger than in the detectable stand condition, suggesting a perceptual coupling of size and distance in conditions of degraded vision. In Experiment 2, we investigated size and implied distance perception of targets elevated above a visible horizon for individuals in an induced state of degraded vision. When participants’ size judgments are inserted into the size–distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH) formula, distance to above-horizon objects increased compared to those below the horizon. Together, our results emphasize the importance of salient visible ground-contact information for accurate distance perception. The absence of this ground-contact information could be the source of perceptual errors leading to potential hazards for low vision individuals with severely degraded acuity and contrast sensitivity.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Durand A., Gould G. M. (1910). A method of determining ocular dominance, J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 55, 369–370.
-
Epstein W., Park J., Casey A. (1961). The current status of the size–distance hypotheses, Psycholog. Bull. 58, 491–514.
-
Fajen B. R., Warren W. H. (2003). Behavioral dynamics of steering, obstacle avoidance, and route selection, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform. 29, 343–362.
-
Fukusima S. S., Loomis J. M., Da Silva J. A. (1997). Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform. 23, 86–100.
-
Gibson J. J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, USA.
-
Gilinsky A. S. (1951). Perceived size and distance in visual space, Psycholog. Rev. 58, 460–482.
-
Gogel W. C. (1969). The sensing of retinal size, Vision Res. 9, 1079–1094.
-
Gogel W. C. (1984). The role of perceptual interrelations in figural synthesis, in: Figural Synthesis, Dodwell P. C., Caelli T. (Eds), pp. 31–82. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.
-
Gogel W. C., Loomis J. M., Newman N. J., Sharkey T. J. (1985). Agreement between indirect measures of perceived distance, Percept. Psychophys. 37, 17–27.
-
Haber R. N., Levin C. A. (2001). The independence of size perception and distance perception, Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1140–1152.
-
Hocking R. R. (2003). Methods and Applications of Linear Models: Regression and Analysis of Variance, 2nd edn. John Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
-
Kilpatrick F., Ittelson W. (1953). The size–distance invariance hypothesis, Psycholog. Rev. 60, 223–231.
-
Kuyk T., Elliott J. L., Biehl J., Fuhr P. S. (1996). Environmental variables and mobility performance in adults with low vision, J. Amer. Optomet. Assoc. 67, 403–409.
-
Long R. G., Reiser J. J., Hill E. W. (1990). Mobility in individuals with moderate visual impairments, J. Visual Impairment Blindness 84, 111–118.
-
Loomis J. M., Philbeck J. W. (2008). Measuring perception with spatial updating and action, in: Embodiment, Ego-space and Action, Klatzky R. L., Behrmann M., MacWhinney B. (Eds). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA.
-
Loomis J. M., Da Silva J., Fujita N., Fukusima S. S. (1992). Visual space perception and visually directed action, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform. 1, 906–921.
-
Lovie-Kitchin J. E., Soong G. P., Hassan S. E., Woods R. L. (2010). Visual field size criteria for mobility rehabilitation referral, J. Optomet. Vision Sci. 87, 948–956.
-
Ludt R., Goodrich G. L. (2002). Change in visual perception detection distances for low vision travelers as a result of dynamic visual assessment and training, J. Vis. Impairment Blindness 96, 7–21.
-
Marron J. A., Bailey I. L. (1982). Visual factors and orientation-mobility performance, Amer. J. Optomet. Physiolog. Optics 59, 413–426.
-
Meng J. C., Sedgwick H. (2001). Distance perception mediated through nested contact relations among surfaces, Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1–14.
-
Meng J. C., Sedgwick H. (2002). Distance perception across spatial discontinuities, Percept. Psychophys. 64, 1–15.
-
Mon-Williams M., Tresilian J. R. (1999). The size–distance paradox is a cognitive phenomenon, Exper. Brain Res. 126, 578–582.
-
Ono H., Muter P., Mitson L. (1974). Size–distance paradox with accommodative micropsia, Percept. Psychophys. 15, 301–307.
-
Ooi T. L., Wu B., He Z. J. (2001). Distance determination by the angular declination below the horizon, Nature 141, 197–200.
-
Ozkan K., Braunstein M. L. (2010). Background surface and horizon effects in the perception of relative size and distance, Vis. Cognit. 18, 229–254.
-
Pelli D. G. (1987). The visual requirements of mobility, in: Low Vision: Principles and Applications, Woo G. C. (Ed.), pp. 134–146. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
-
Philbeck J. W., Loomis J. M. (1997). Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform. 23, 72–85.
-
Rand K. M., Tarampi M. R., Creem-Regehr S. H., Thompson W. B. (2011). The importance of the visible horizon for distance judgments under severely degraded vision, Perception 40, 143–154.
-
Rieser J. J., Ashmead D. H., Talor C. R., Youngquist G. A. (1990). Visual perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets, Perception 19, 675–689.
-
Sedgwick H. A. (1983). Environment-centered representation of spatial layout: available visual information from texture and perspective, in: Human and Machine Vision, Beck J., Hope B., Rosenfeld A. (Eds), pp. 425–458. Academic Press, New York, USA.
-
Tarampi M. R., Creem-Regehr S. H., Thompson W. B. (2010). Intact spatial updating with severely degraded vision, Attention Percept. Psychophys. 72, 23–26.
-
Thompson W. B., Fleming R. W., Creem-Regehr S. H., Stefanucci J. K. (2011). Visual Perception from a Computer Graphics Perspective. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
-
Thomson J. A. (1983). Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion, J. Exper. Psychol. 9, 427–443.
-
Turano K. A., Broman A. T., Bandeen-Roche K., Munoz B., Rubin G. S., West S. and SEE Project Team (2004). Association of visual field loss and mobility performance in older adults, J. Optomet. Vision Sci. 81, 298–307.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 371 | 53 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 47 | 6 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 60 | 4 | 0 |
The Influence of Ground Contact and Visible Horizon on Perception of Distance and Size under Severely Degraded Vision
In: Seeing and PerceivingSearch for other papers by Kristina M. Rand in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Margaret R. Tarampi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sarah H. Creem-Regehr in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by William B. Thompson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
For low vision navigation, misperceiving the locations of hazards can have serious consequences. Potential sources of such misperceptions are hazards that are not visually associated with the ground plane, thus, depriving the viewer of important perspective cues for egocentric distance. In Experiment 1, we assessed absolute distance and size judgments to targets on stands under degraded vision conditions. Normally sighted observers wore blur goggles that severely reduced acuity and contrast, and viewed targets placed on either detectable or undetectable stands. Participants in the detectable stand condition demonstrated accurate distance judgments, whereas participants in the undetectable stand condition overestimated target distances. Similarly, the perceived size of targets in the undetectable stand condition was judged to be significantly larger than in the detectable stand condition, suggesting a perceptual coupling of size and distance in conditions of degraded vision. In Experiment 2, we investigated size and implied distance perception of targets elevated above a visible horizon for individuals in an induced state of degraded vision. When participants’ size judgments are inserted into the size–distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH) formula, distance to above-horizon objects increased compared to those below the horizon. Together, our results emphasize the importance of salient visible ground-contact information for accurate distance perception. The absence of this ground-contact information could be the source of perceptual errors leading to potential hazards for low vision individuals with severely degraded acuity and contrast sensitivity.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 371 | 53 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 47 | 6 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 60 | 4 | 0 |