The influence of ground contact and visible horizon on perception of distance and size under severely degraded vision.

For low vision navigation, misperceiving the locations of hazards can have serious consequences. Potential sources of such misperceptions are hazards that are not visually associated with the ground plane, thus, depriving the viewer of important perspective cues for egocentric distance. In Experiment 1, we assessed absolute distance and size judgments to targets on stands under degraded vision conditions. Normally sighted observers wore blur goggles that severely reduced acuity and contrast, and viewed targets placed on either detectable or undetectable stands. Participants in the detectable stand condition demonstrated accurate distance judgments, whereas participants in the undetectable stand condition overestimated target distances. Similarly, the perceived size of targets in the undetectable stand condition was judged to be significantly larger than in the detectable stand condition, suggesting a perceptual coupling of size and distance in conditions of degraded vision. In Experiment 2, we investigated size and implied distance perception of targets elevated above a visible horizon for individuals in an induced state of degraded vision. When participants' size judgments are inserted into the size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH) formula, distance to above-horizon objects increased compared to those below the horizon. Together, our results emphasize the importance of salient visible ground-contact information for accurate distance perception. The absence of this ground-contact information could be the source of perceptual errors leading to potential hazards for low vision individuals with severely degraded acuity and contrast sensitivity.

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

[2]  H A Sedgwick,et al.  Distance perception mediated through nested contact relations among surfaces , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  H. Sedgwick Environment-Centered Representation of Spatial Layout: Available Visual Information from Texture and Perspective , 1983 .

[4]  I. Bailey,et al.  Visual Factors and Orientation‐Mobility Performance , 1982, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

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

[6]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Visual Perception from a Computer Graphics Perspective , 2011 .

[7]  W C Gogel,et al.  The sensing of retinal size. , 1969, Vision research.

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

[9]  J. Loomis,et al.  Visual space perception and visually directed action. , 1992 .

[10]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon , 2001, Nature.

[11]  W. H. Ittelson,et al.  The size-distance invariance hypothesis. , 1953, Psychological review.

[12]  R N Haber,et al.  The independence of size perception and distance perception , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  H A Sedgwick,et al.  Distance perception across spatial discontinuities , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  T. Kuyk,et al.  Environmental variables and mobility performance in adults with low vision. , 1996, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[15]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Intact spatial updating with severely degraded vision , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[16]  W. Epstein,et al.  The current status of the size-distance hypotheses. , 1961, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  Gregory L. Goodrich,et al.  Change in Visual Perceptual Detection Distances for Low Vision Travelers as a Result of Dynamic Visual Assessment and Training , 2002 .

[18]  Sarah H Creem-Regehr,et al.  The Importance of a Visual Horizon for Distance Judgments under Severely Degraded Vision , 2011, Perception.

[19]  E.W. Hill,et al.  Mobility in Individuals with Moderate Visual Impairments , 1990 .

[20]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  The size-distance paradox is a cognitive phenomenon , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  Visual requirements of mobility (A) , 1983 .

[22]  B. Munoz,et al.  Association of Visual Field Loss and Mobility Performance in Older Adults: Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study , 2004, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[23]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  Size-distance paradox with accommodative micropsia , 1974 .

[24]  J M Loomis,et al.  Agreement between indirect measures of perceived distance , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  R. R. Hocking Methods and Applications of Linear Models: Regression and the Analysis of Variance , 2003 .

[26]  Brett R. Fajen,et al.  Behavioral dynamics of steering, obstacle avoidance, and route selection. , 2003 .

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

[28]  J. Gibson The perception of the visual world , 1951 .

[29]  Shirin E. Hassan,et al.  Visual Field Size Criteria for Mobility Rehabilitation Referral , 2010, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

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

[31]  M. Braunstein,et al.  Background surface and horizon effects in the perception of relative size and distance , 2010, Visual cognition.

[32]  George M. Gould,et al.  A METHOD OF DETERMINING OCULAR DOMINANCE , 1910 .