Interceptive timing: prior knowledge matters.

Fast interceptive actions, such as catching a ball, rely upon accurate and precise information from vision. Recent models rely on flexible combinations of visual angle and its rate of expansion of which the tau parameter is a specific case. When an object approaches an observer, however, its trajectory may introduce bias into tau-like parameters that render these computations unacceptable as the sole source of information for actions. Here we show that observer knowledge of object size influences their action timing, and known size combined with image expansion simplifies the computations required to make interceptive actions and provides a route for experience to influence interceptive action.

[1]  Simon K. Rushton,et al.  Weighted combination of size and disparity: a computational model for timing a ball catch , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[2]  J. Tresilian,et al.  Constraints on the spatiotemporal accuracy of interceptive action: effects of target size on hitting a moving target , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  F. C. Bakker,et al.  Catching balls: how to get the hand to the right place at the right time. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Merging the senses into a robust percept , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  M. Miyazaki,et al.  Testing Bayesian models of human coincidence timing. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  John P. Wann,et al.  Anticipating arrival: is the tau margin a specious theory? , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Joan López-Moliner,et al.  Speed of response initiation in a time-to-contact discrimination task reflects the use of η , 2002, Vision Research.

[8]  D. Regan,et al.  Binocular and monocular stimuli for motion in depth: Changing-disparity and changing-size feed the same motion-in-depth stage , 1979, Vision Research.

[9]  Patricia R DeLucia,et al.  Does Binocular Disparity or Familiar Size Information Override Effects of Relative Size on Judgements of Time to Contact? , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  B. Frost,et al.  Computation of different optical variables of looming objects in pigeon nucleus rotundus neurons , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  Scott M. Dittman,et al.  Monocular optical constraints on collision control. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  C. Michaels,et al.  Information and action in punching a falling ball , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[13]  David N. Lee,et al.  Plummeting gannets: a paradigm of ecological optics , 1981, Nature.

[14]  J. Tresilian Visually timed action: time-out for ‘tau’? , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  Julie M. Harris,et al.  Speed discrimination of motion-in-depth using binocular cues , 1995, Vision Research.

[16]  Rob Gray,et al.  Behavior of college baseball players in a virtual batting task. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[18]  J. van der Kamp,et al.  Catching optical information for the regulation of timing , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  Paul R. Schrater,et al.  Auxiliary object knowledge influences visually-guided interception behavior , 2005, APGV '05.

[20]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[21]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.