Depth discrimination of constant angular size stimuli in action space: role of accommodation and convergence cues

In our daily life experience, the angular size of an object correlates with its distance from the observer, provided that the physical size of the object remains constant. In this work, we investigated depth perception in action space (i.e., beyond the arm reach), while keeping the angular size of the target object constant. This was achieved by increasing the physical size of the target object as its distance to the observer increased. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a similar protocol has been tested in action space, for distances to the observer ranging from 1.4–2.4 m. We replicated the task in virtual and real environments and we found that the performance was significantly different between the two environments. In the real environment, all participants perceived the depth of the target object precisely. Whereas, in virtual reality (VR) the responses were significantly less precise, although, still above chance level in 16 of the 20 observers. The difference in the discriminability of the stimuli was likely due to different contributions of the convergence and the accommodation cues in the two environments. The values of Weber fractions estimated in our study were compared to those reported in previous studies in peripersonal and action space.

[1]  Eric Kolstad,et al.  Egocentric depth judgments in optical, see-through augmented reality , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[2]  M. Landy,et al.  Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion , 1995, Vision Research.

[3]  S. Ellis Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments , 1991 .

[4]  James R. Tresilian,et al.  Monocular and binocular distance cues: insights from visual form agnosia I (of III) , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  James R. Tresilian,et al.  Increasing confidence in vergence as a cue to distance , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Chapter 3 – Perceiving Layout and Knowing Distances: The Integration, Relative Potency, and Contextual Use of Different Information about Depth* , 1995 .

[7]  Robert D. McIntosh,et al.  Vertical gaze angle as a distance cue for programming reaching: insights from visual form agnosia II (of III) , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  J. A. Aznar-Casanova,et al.  Can exocentric direction be dissociated from its exocentric distance in virtual environments? , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. , 2003 .

[10]  Stefan Edlund,et al.  Perceptual distance and the constancy of size and stereoscopic depth. , 2006, Spatial vision.

[11]  Will Spijkers,et al.  Depth Perception in Virtual Reality: Distance Estimations in Peri- and Extrapersonal Space , 2008, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[12]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 2003 .

[13]  Alessandro Moscatelli,et al.  Modeling psychophysical data at the population-level: the generalized linear mixed model. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[14]  Victoria Interrante,et al.  Distance Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments, Revisited , 2006, IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR 2006).

[15]  A. S. Gilinsky Perceived size and distance in visual space. , 1951, Psychological review.

[16]  Shojiro Nagata,et al.  How to reinforce perception of depth in single two-dimensional pictures , 1991 .

[17]  J. Cutting,et al.  Minimodularity and the perception of layout. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  J P Frisby,et al.  Frisby Davis distance stereoacuity values in visually normal children , 2005, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[19]  F. Previc The neuropsychology of 3-D space. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  Thierry Hoinville,et al.  Depth Perception Within Peripersonal Space Using Head-Mounted Display , 2011, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[21]  S. Gilson,et al.  Cue combination for 3D location judgements. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[22]  D. Ja,et al.  Scales for perceived egocentric distance in a large open field: comparison of three psychophysical methods. , 1985 .

[23]  Y Trotter,et al.  Distance Perception within near Visual Space , 2001, Perception.

[24]  J R Tresilian,et al.  Ordinal depth information from accommodation? , 2000, Ergonomics.

[25]  David M. Hoffman,et al.  Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[26]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  Does the Quality of the Computer Graphics Matter when Judging Distances in Visually Immersive Environments? , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[27]  J. Philbeck,et al.  Visual Perception of Location and Distance , 1996 .

[28]  Colin Ware,et al.  Information Visualization: Perception for Design , 2000 .

[29]  Elia Vecellio,et al.  Binocular depth discrimination and estimation beyond interaction space. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[30]  Jannick P. Rolland,et al.  Towards Quantifying Depth and Size Perception in Virtual Environments , 1993, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[31]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Limited Field of View of Head-Mounted Displays Is Not the Cause of Distance Underestimation in Virtual Environments , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[32]  Marta Olivetti Belardinelli,et al.  Comparing distance perception in different virtual environments , 2009, Cognitive Processing.

[33]  Takashi Shibata,et al.  Insight into vergence/accommodation mismatch , 2013, Defense, Security, and Sensing.