Reaching measures of monocular distance perception: Forward versus side-to-side head movements and haptic feedback

We investigated whether forward or side-to-side head movements yielded more accurate and precise monocular egocentric distance information, as shown by performance in a reaching task. Observers wore a head-mounted camera and display to isolate the optic flow generated by their head movements and had to reach to align a stylus directly under a target surface. Performance in the two head movement conditions was also tested with normal monocular vision. We tested performance in the two head movement conditions when the observers were given haptic feedback and compared performance when haptic feedback was removed. Performance was both more accurate and more precise in the forward head movement condition than in the side-to-side head movement condition. Performance in the side-to-side condition also deteriorated more after the removal of haptic feedback than did performance in the forward head movement condition. In the normal monocular condition, performance was comparable for the two head movement conditions. The implications for enucleated patients are discussed.

[1]  John M. Foley,et al.  Visually directed pointing as a function of target distance, direction, and available cues , 1972 .

[2]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Optical flow from eye movement with head immobilized: “Ocular occlusion” beyond the nose , 1993, Vision Research.

[3]  E. Sture Eriksson.  Movement parallax during locomotion , 1974 .

[4]  John M Foley,et al.  Effect of Distance Information and Range on Two Indices of Visually Perceived Distance , 1977, Perception.

[5]  S. H. Ferris.  Motion parallax and absolute distance. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[7]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The role of binocular vision in prehension: a kinematic analysis , 1992, Vision Research.

[8]  G. Johansson,et al.  Monocular Movement Parallax and Near-Space Perception , 1973 .

[9]  G P Bingham,et al.  Distortions in definite distance and shape perception as measured by reaching without and with haptic feedback. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  G P Bingham,et al.  The necessity of a perception-action approach to definite distance perception: monocular distance perception to guide reaching. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[13]  B J Rogers,et al.  Visual and nonvisual information disambiguate surfaces specified by motion parallax , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  G P Bingham,et al.  Perceiving the size of trees: Biological form and the horizon ratio , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  John M. Foley,et al.  Primary Distance Perception , 1978 .

[16]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Distance estimation in the mongolian gerbil: The role of dynamic depth cues , 1984, Behavioural Brain Research.

[17]  Christopher C. Pagano,et al.  Comparing measures of monocular distance perception: Verbal and reaching errors are not correlated. , 1998 .

[18]  Rogers Bj,et al.  Motion parallax and other dynamic cues for depth in humans. , 1993 .

[19]  J J Marotta,et al.  The development of adaptive head movements following enucleation , 1995, Eye.

[20]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Monocular Egocentric Distance Information Generated by Head Movement , 1994 .