Perception of time to contact of slow- and fast-moving objects using monocular and binocular motion information

The role of the monocular-flow-based optical variable τ in the perception of the time to contact of approaching objects has been well-studied. There are additional contributions from binocular sources of information, such as changes in disparity over time (CDOT), but these are less understood. We conducted an experiment to determine whether an object’s velocity affects which source is most effective for perceiving time to contact. We presented participants with stimuli that simulated two approaching squares. During approach the squares disappeared, and participants indicated which square would have contacted them first. Approach was specified by (a) only disparity-based information, (b) only monocular flow, or (c) all sources of information in normal viewing conditions. As expected, participants were more accurate at judging fast objects when only monocular flow was available than when only CDOT was. In contrast, participants were more accurate judging slow objects with only CDOT than with only monocular flow. For both ranges of velocity, the condition with both information sources yielded performance equivalent to the better of the single-source conditions. These results show that different sources of motion information are used to perceive time to contact and play different roles in allowing for stable perception across a variety of conditions.

[1]  H. Heuer,et al.  Estimates of Time to Contact Based on Changing Size and Changing Target Vergence , 1993, Perception.

[2]  J T Todd,et al.  Visual information about moving objects. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  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.

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

[5]  Information and control strategy to solve the degrees-of-freedom problem for nested locomotion-to-reach , 2014, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  D. Regan,et al.  Estimating the time to collision with a rotating nonspherical object , 2000, Vision Research.

[7]  C W Tyler,et al.  Stereoscopic Depth Movement: Two Eyes Less Sensitive than One , 1971, Science.

[8]  W. Miles.  Ocular dominance in human adults. , 1930 .

[9]  Patricia DeLucia,et al.  Information Integration in Judgements of Time to Contact , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  Julie M. Harris,et al.  Binocular vision and motion-in-depth. , 2008, Spatial vision.

[11]  Simon J Watt,et al.  The visual control of reaching and grasping: binocular disparity and motion parallax. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  William H. Warren,et al.  Visually Controlled Locomotion: 40 years Later , 1998 .

[13]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.

[14]  G. Bingham,et al.  A solution to the online guidance problem for targeted reaches: proportional rate control using relative disparity τ , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  G. Bingham,et al.  Locomoting-to-reach: information variables and control strategies for nested actions , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  D Regan,et al.  Accuracy of estimating time to collision using binocular and monocular information , 1998, Vision Research.

[17]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

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

[19]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[20]  David Regan,et al.  Chapter 13 The use of binocular time-to-contact information , 2004 .

[21]  D Regan,et al.  Some dynamic features of depth perception. , 1973, Vision research.

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

[23]  Julie M. Harris,et al.  Two Independent Mechanisms for Motion-In-Depth Perception: Evidence from Individual Differences , 2010, Front. Psychology.