Reproduction of Object Shape is More Accurate without the Continued Availability of Visual Information

An unfamiliar configuration lying in depth and viewed from a distance is typically seen as foreshortened. The hypothesis motivating this research was that a change in an observer's viewpoint even when the configuration is no longer visible induces an imaginal updating of the internal representation and thus reduces the degree of foreshortening. In experiment 1, observers attempted to reproduce configurations defined by three small glowing balls on a table 2 m distant under conditions of darkness following ‘viewpoint change’ instructions. In one condition, observers reproduced the continuously visible configuration using three other glowing balls on a nearer table while imagining standing at the distant table. In the other condition, observers viewed the configuration, it was then removed, and they walked in darkness to the far table and reproduced the configuration. Even though the observers received no additional information about the stimulus configuration in walking to the table, they were more accurate (less foreshortening) than in the other condition. In experiment 2, observers reproduced distant configurations on a nearer table more accurately when doing so from memory than when doing so while viewing the distant stimulus configuration. In experiment 3, observers performed both the real and imagined perspective change after memorizing the remote configuration. The results of the three experiments indicate that the continued visual presence of the target configuration impedes imaginary perspective-change performance and that an actual change in viewpoint does not increase reproduction accuracy substantially over that obtained with an imagined change in viewpoint.

[1]  J M Loomis,et al.  Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  A Berthoz,et al.  Updating an object’s orientation and location during nonvisual navigation: A comparison between two processing modes , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  A. Glenberg,et al.  What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[4]  S S Fukusima,et al.  Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  J. Philbeck,et al.  Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions , 1997 .

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

[7]  R. D. Easton,et al.  Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  C C Presson,et al.  Updating after Rotational and Translational Body Movements: Coordinate Structure of Perspective Space , 1994, Perception.

[9]  M. Jeannerod The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[10]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  Visual angle as a determinant of perceived interobject distance , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  J. Loomis,et al.  Visual space perception and visually directed action. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  L. Jakobson,et al.  A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them , 1991, Nature.

[13]  J. Rieser,et al.  Visual Perception and the Guidance of Locomotion without Vision to Previously Seen Targets , 1990, Perception.

[14]  D. Elliott,et al.  Short-term memory for spatial location in goal-directed locomotion , 1990 .

[15]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[16]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  The timing of mentally represented actions , 1989, Behavioural Brain Research.

[17]  M A Goodale,et al.  The effects of time and distance on accuracy of target-directed locomotion: does an accurate short-term memory for spatial location exist? , 1988, Journal of motor behavior.

[18]  J. Baird,et al.  Overflow, first-sight, and vanishing point distances in visual imagery. , 1988, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition.

[19]  D. Elliott,et al.  The influence of walking speed and prior practice on locomotor distance estimation. , 1987, Journal of motor behavior.

[20]  Digby Elliott,et al.  Influence of a No-Vision Delay on Throwing Accuracy , 1986 .

[21]  C. Prablanc,et al.  Large adjustments in visually guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement , 1986, Nature.

[22]  R. Toye,et al.  The effect of viewing position on the perceived layout of space , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  A. Patla,et al.  Locomotor Estimation of Distance after Visual Scanning by Children and Adults , 1985, Perception.

[24]  Michel Laurent,et al.  Rôle des modalités de prise d'informations visuelles dans un pointage locomoteur , 1985 .

[25]  Bruno Lecoutre,et al.  Specific inference in ANOVA: From significance tests to Bayesian procedures , 1983 .

[26]  J. Thomson Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion? , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  T. Gärling,et al.  Maintenance of orientation during locomotion in unfamiliar environments. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  J. Thomson How do we use visual information to control locomotion? , 1980, Trends in Neurosciences.

[31]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Relation between cognitive and motor-oriented systems of visual position perception. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  S. Kosslyn Measuring the visual angle of the mind's eye , 1978, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  M. Potegal,et al.  A note on spatial-motor deficits in patients with Huntington's disease: a test of a hypothesis. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[34]  Henry Rouanet,et al.  Bayesian methods for assessing importance of effects. , 1996 .

[35]  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 .

[36]  R N Haber,et al.  Properties of spatial representations: Data from sighted and blind subjects , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  Alain Savoyant,et al.  Chapter 2 Visual imagery in locomotor movement without vision , 1991 .

[38]  E. Loarer Représentation et action : l'exemple du contrôle des déplacements locomoteurs , 1990 .

[39]  Darren A. Kall,et al.  Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[40]  J. Rieser Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  D. Elliott Continuous visual information may be important after all: a failure to replicate Thomson (1983). , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[43]  W. Epstein Stability and constancy in visual perception : mechanisms and processes , 1977 .