The indispensability of precollision kinematics in the visual perception of relative mass

The visible kinematic pattern that occurs when objects collide contains information about the relative mass of the objects. Recently, Gilden and Proffitt (1989) have claimed that perceivers are limited to the use of simultaneous elemental cues and that therefore mass discrimination judgments are independent of whether the precollision epoch is visible or not. The present paper argues that their experimental results are irrelevant because crucial parameters were held constant, and that false conclusions were drawn because their data were not treated for what they are: threshold measurements obtained with the method of constant stimuli. Three experiments are reported, showingthat a high level of performance is attainable only when the whole event is visible, and thus that the effective information is extended over time. In addition, modified PROBIT analysis was used to determine what information observers use when the precollision epoch is occluded. Analytically complex invariants, based on vector components in the abstract collision-axis system, proved to have the best fit to the data. Thus the elementaristic premises in Gilden and Proffitt’s cue-heuristic model for relative mass perception are defeated.

[1]  A. Michotte.  The perception of causality , 1963 .

[2]  G. Johansson.  PERCEPTION OF MOTION AND CHANGING FORM: A study of visual perception from continuous transformations of a solid angle of light at the eye , 1964 .

[3]  J. Lewis,et al.  Probit Analysis (3rd ed). , 1972 .

[4]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[5]  S. Runeson,et al.  Constant velocity — Not perceived as such , 1974, Psychological research.

[6]  S. Runeson.  Visual prediction of collision with natural and nonnatural motion functions , 1975 .

[7]  S. Runeson.  On the possibility of "smart" perceptual mechanisms. , 1977, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[8]  Robert Rosen,et al.  Fundamentals Of Measurement And Representation Of Natural Systems , 1978 .

[9]  T. Amemiya.  QUALITATIVE RESPONSE MODELS: A SURVEY , 1981 .

[10]  S. Runeson,et al.  Visual perception of lifted weight. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  J T Todd,et al.  Visual Perception of Relative Mass in Dynamic Events , 1982, Perception.

[12]  S. Runeson,et al.  Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person and action perception: Expe , 1983 .

[13]  M K Kaiser,et al.  Observers’ sensitivity to dynamic anomalies in collisions , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  W H Warren,et al.  The Way the Ball Bounces: Visual and Auditory Perception of Elasticity and Control of the Bounce Pass , 1987, Perception.

[15]  G. Bingham,et al.  Kinematic form and scaling: further investigations on the visual perception of lifted weight. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Understanding natural dynamics. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[18]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes , 1990 .

[19]  Michael T. Turvey,et al.  Perceiving the Lengths of Rods That are Held But Not Wielded , 1990 .

[20]  David L. Gilden.  On the origins of dynamical awareness. , 1991 .

[21]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Scaling Judgments of Lifted Weight: Lifter Size and the Role of the Standard , 1993 .

[22]  G. Butterworth,et al.  Michotte's experimental phenomenology of perception , 1994 .