Perceived depth is a necessary factor in apparent motion concomitant with head motion: A reply to Shebilske and Proffitt

Shebilske and Proffitt (1981) are critical of the conclusion that the perception of motion of physically stationary objects concomitant with the motion of the head is caused by errors in perceived distance. Instead, they prefer an explanation in terms of the direct perception of retinal motion or perhaps in terms of the minimum principle. Their comments are directed at, not only the experiments reported in "The sensing of retinal motion" (Gogel, 1980), but also the series of experiments from our laboratory that have used apparent concomitant motion to measure perceived distance and to distinguish between cognitive and perceptual factors in distance responses. This reply will discuss the evidence for and the logic of implicating depth perception, first as an important and then as a necessary variable in the apparent motion of stationary objects concomitant with the motion of the head. It will be shown that the role of perceived distance in this phenomenon cannot be avoided by dismissing apparent concomitant motion as paradoxical, or as determined by retinal motion alone, nor can it be explained, using the minimum principle, as a derivative of retinal motion. The criticisms of the study by Gogel (1980) with regard to procedure and with regard to its implication for the cue of motion parallax will be shown to be inappropriate. Finally, the application of apparent concomitant motion to the measurement of perceived distance and to the separation of cognitive and perceptual factors will be considered briefly.

[1]  W C Gogel,et al.  Effects of Posthypnotic Suggestion on Perceived Egocentric Distance , 1980, Perception.

[2]  W. Gogel,et al.  The organization of perceived space , 1973, Psychologische Forschung.

[3]  W C Gogel,et al.  The common occurrence of errors of perceived distance , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  An indirect measure of perceived distance from oculomotor cues , 1977 .

[5]  E R Wist,et al.  Spatial and fixation conditions affecting the temporal course of changes in perceived relative distance , 1976, Psychological research.

[6]  J. Hay,et al.  Position constancy and binocular convergence , 1969 .

[7]  W C Gogel,et al.  The sensing of retinal size. , 1969, Vision research.

[8]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  An indirect method of measuring perceived distance from familiar size , 1976 .

[9]  D R Proffitt,et al.  The priority of perceived distance for perceiving motion has not been demonstrated: Critical comments on Gogel’s “The sensing of retinal motion” , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  W C Gogel,et al.  The sensing of retinal motion , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  W C Gogel,et al.  Eye Fixation and Attention as Modifiers of Perceived Distance , 1977, Perceptual and motor skills.

[12]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  The effect of perceived distance on perceived movement , 1974 .

[13]  I. Rock,et al.  Speed constancy as a function of size constancy , 1968 .

[14]  W. Epstein,et al.  The Process of ‘Taking-into-Account’ in Visual Perception , 1973, Perception.

[15]  W. Gogel,et al.  EQUIDISTANCE TENDENCY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  Hans Wallach,et al.  Target distance and adaptation in distance perception in the constancy of visual direction , 1972 .

[17]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance , 1979, Vision Research.

[18]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency , 1973 .