Coherence of structural visual cues and pictorial gravity paves the way for interceptive actions.

Dealing with upside-down objects is difficult and takes time. Among the cues that are critical for defining object orientation, the visible influence of gravity on the object's motion has received limited attention. Here, we manipulated the alignment of visible gravity and structural visual cues between each other and relative to the orientation of the observer and physical gravity. Participants pressed a button triggering a hitter to intercept a target accelerated by a virtual gravity. A factorial design assessed the effects of scene orientation (normal or inverted) and target gravity (normal or inverted). We found that interception was significantly more successful when scene direction was concordant with target gravity direction, irrespective of whether both were upright or inverted. This was so independent of the hitter type and when performance feedback to the participants was either available (Experiment 1) or unavailable (Experiment 2). These results show that the combined influence of visible gravity and structural visual cues can outweigh both physical gravity and viewer-centered cues, leading to rely instead on the congruence of the apparent physical forces acting on people and objects in the scene.

[1]  I Rock,et al.  On Thompson's Inverted-Face Phenomenon (Research Note) , 1988, Perception.

[2]  Inci Ayhan,et al.  Retinotopic adaptation-based visual duration compression. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[3]  G. Taga,et al.  Frame of reference for visual perception in young infants during change of body position , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  Ian P. Howard,et al.  Human visual orientation , 1982 .

[5]  Laurence R Harris,et al.  Shape-from-Shading Depends on Visual, Gravitational, and Body-Orientation Cues , 2004, Perception.

[6]  F. Lacquaniti,et al.  Internal models and prediction of visual gravitational motion , 2008, Vision Research.

[7]  R. Yin.  Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[8]  S. Palmer.  Vision Science : Photons to Phenomenology , 1999 .

[9]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Perceiving the size of trees: form as information about scale , 1993 .

[10]  M. Pavlova,et al.  Orientation specificity in biological motion perception , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  Jordan Grafman,et al.  Handbook of Neuropsychology , 1991 .

[12]  S. Runeson.  The distorted room illusion, equivalent configurations, and the specificity of static optic arrays. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  N. Troje,et al.  The Inversion Effect in Biological Motion Perception: Evidence for a “Life Detector”? , 2006, Current Biology.

[14]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Reference frame and effects of orientation on finding the tops of rotated objects. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  D R Proffitt,et al.  Understanding collision dynamics. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Roberto Arrighi,et al.  Spatiotopic selectivity of adaptation-based compression of event duration. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[17]  L. Harris,et al.  Perceptual upright: the relative effectiveness of dynamic and static images under different gravity States. , 2011, Seeing and perceiving.

[18]  F. Mast,et al.  The Thatcher Illusion: Rotating the Viewer Instead of the Picture , 2007, Perception.

[19]  P. Juslin,et al.  Visual perception of dynamic properties: cue heuristics versus direct-perceptual competence. , 2000, Psychological review.

[20]  S. Sumi.  Upside-down Presentation of the Johansson Moving Light-Spot Pattern , 1984, Perception.

[21]  Vincenzo Maffei,et al.  Vestibular nuclei and cerebellum put visual gravitational motion in context. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[22]  F. Lacquaniti,et al.  Representation of Visual Gravitational Motion in the Human Vestibular Cortex , 2005, Science.

[23]  Olaf Blanke,et al.  Gravity and observer's body orientation influence the visual perception of human body postures. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[24]  Vincenzo Maffei,et al.  Extrapolation of vertical target motion through a brief visual occlusion , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[25]  F. Lacquaniti,et al.  The weight of time: gravitational force enhances discrimination of visual motion duration. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[26]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Cortical correlates of face and scene inversion: A comparison , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[27]  V. Stone,et al.  The Body-Inversion Effect , 2003, Psychological science.

[28]  R. Blake,et al.  What constitutes an efficient reference frame for vision? , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  G P Bingham,et al.  Dynamics and the orientation of kinematic forms in visual event recognition. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  P. Thompson,et al.  Margaret Thatcher: A New Illusion , 1980, Perception.

[31]  A. Freire,et al.  The Face-Inversion Effect as a Deficit in the Encoding of Configural Information: Direct Evidence , 2000, Perception.

[32]  L. Harris,et al.  The subjective visual vertical and the perceptual upright , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[33]  T. Shipley.  The Effect of Object and Event Orientation on Perception of Biological Motion , 2003, Psychological science.

[34]  Bennett I. Bertenthal,et al.  Global Processing of Biological Motions , 1994 .

[35]  Dorita H. F. Chang,et al.  Acceleration carries the local inversion effect in biological motion perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[36]  Dorita H. F. Chang,et al.  Frames of reference for biological motion and face perception. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[37]  A. Wolters,et al.  Dynamics in Psychology , 1943, Nature.

[38]  Nikolaus F Troje,et al.  Reference Frames for Orientation Anisotropies in Face Recognition and Biological-Motion Perception , 2003, Perception.