Accuracy and adaptation of reaching and pointing in pitched visual environments

Visually perceived eye level (VPEL) and the ability of subjects to reach with an unseen limb to targets placed at VPEL were measured in a statically pitched visual surround (pitchroom). VPEL was shifted upward and downward by upward and downward room pitch, respectively. Accuracy in reaching to VPEL represented a compromise between VPEL and actual eye level. This indicates that VPEL shifts reflect in part a change in perceived location of objects. When subjects were provided with terminal visual feedback about their reaching, accuracy improved rapidly. Subsequent reaching, with the room vertical, revealed a negative aftereffect (i.e., reaching errors that were opposite those made initially in the pitched room). In a second study, pointing accuracy was assessed for targets located both at VPEL and at other positions. Errors were similar for targets whether located at VPEL or elsewhere. Additionally, pointing responses were restricted to a narrower range than that of the actual target locations. The small size of reaching and pointing errors in both studies suggests that factors other than a change in perceived location are also involved in VPEL shifts.

[1]  Sheldon M. Ebenholtz,et al.  The rod and frame effect and induced head tilt as a function of observation distance , 1977 .

[2]  S. Ebenholtz,et al.  Absence of relational determination in the rod-and-frame effect , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  R. Welch Perceptual Modification: Adapting to Altered Sensory Environments , 1978 .

[4]  C. S. Harris,et al.  Beware of the Straight-Ahead Shift—A Nonperceptual Change in Experiments on Adaptation to Displaced Vision , 1974, Perception.

[5]  J. Dichgans,et al.  Visual-Vestibular Interaction: Effects on Self-Motion Perception and Postural Control , 1978 .

[6]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Relation between cognitive and motor-oriented systems of visual position perception. , 1979 .

[7]  L Matin,et al.  Visually perceived eye level: changes induced by a pitched-from-vertical 2-line visual field. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Ian P. Howard,et al.  Human visual orientation , 1982 .

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

[10]  Bruce Bridgeman,et al.  Oculomotor and skeletal motor systems share one map of visual space , 1987, Vision Research.

[11]  Sheldon M. Ebenholtz,et al.  Determinants of the rod and frame effect: The role of retinal size , 1977 .

[12]  C. R. Fox,et al.  Visually perceived eye level and perceived elevation of objects: Linearly additive influences from visual field pitch and from gravity , 1989, Vision Research.

[13]  Cynthia J. Ballinger The effects of a pitched field orientation on hand/eye coordination , 1988 .

[14]  H. A. Witkin,et al.  Studies in space orientation; further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  M M Cohen,et al.  Effect of structured visual environments on apparent eye level , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  M M Cohen,et al.  Visual and somesthetic influences on postural orientation in the median plane , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.