Large perspective changes yield perception of metric shape that allows accurate feedforward reaches-to-grasp and it persists after the optic flow has stopped!

Lee et al. (Percept Psychophys 70:1032–1046, 2008a) investigated whether visual perception of metric shape could be calibrated when used to guide feedforward reaches-to-grasp. It could not. Seated participants viewed target objects (elliptical cylinders) in normal lighting using stereo vision and free head movements that allowed small (≈10°) perspective changes. The authors concluded that poor perception of metric shape was the reason reaches-to-grasp should be visually guided online. However, Bingham and Lind (Percept Psychophys 70:524–540, 2008) showed that large perspective changes (≥45°) yield good perception of metric shape. So, now we repeated the Lee et al.’s study with the addition of information from large perspective changes. The results were accurate feedforward reaches-to-grasp reflecting accurate perception of both metric shape and metric size. Large perspective changes occur when one locomotes into a workspace in which reaches-to-grasp are subsequently performed. Does the resulting perception of metric shape persist after the large perspective changes have ceased? Experiments 2 and 3 tested reaches-to-grasp with delays (Exp. 2, 5-s delay; Exp. 3, ≈16-s delay) and multiple objects to be grasped after a single viewing. Perception of metric shape and metric size persisted yielding accurate reaches-to-grasp. We advocate the study of nested actions using a dynamic approach to perception/action.

[1]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  The coordination patterns observed when two hands reach-to-grasp separate objects , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  Mats Lind,et al.  Metric shape perception requires a 45° continuous perspective change , 2010 .

[3]  J T Todd,et al.  The Discriminability of Local Surface Structure , 1996, Perception.

[4]  J S Tittle,et al.  Recovery of 3-D shape from binocular disparity and structure from motion , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  Barbara Gillam,et al.  The Perception of Spatial Layout from Static Optical Information , 1995 .

[6]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Solid shape , 1990 .

[7]  R. K. Luneburg.  Errata:* The Metric of Binocular Visual Space. , 1951 .

[8]  Mark Mon-Williams,et al.  Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  Mary A. Peterson,et al.  On Figures, Grounds, and Varieties of Surface Completion , 2003 .

[10]  James T. Todd,et al.  The perception of surface orientation from multiple sources of optical information , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  Young-Lim Lee,et al.  Poor shape perception is the reason reaches-to-grasp are visually guided online , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Task constraints alter prehension movements qualitatively and quantitatively , 2010 .

[13]  James A Crowell,et al.  Distortions of distance and shape are not produced by a single continuous transformation of reach space , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Perceiving Layout and Knowing Distances , 1995 .

[15]  Mats Lind,et al.  Shape perception is merely ambiguous, not systematically distorted , 2010 .

[16]  J. Todd,et al.  The perception of surface curvature from optical motion , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  R. Kimchi,et al.  Perceptual organization in vision : behavioral and neural perspectives , 2003 .

[18]  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 .

[19]  E. Johnston.  Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis , 1991, Vision Research.

[20]  J F Norman,et al.  The detection of surface curvatures defined by optical motion , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  M. Goodale,et al.  The effects of delay on the kinematics of grasping , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Calibrating grasp size and reach distance: interactions reveal integral organization of reaching-to-grasp movements , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  J P Wann,et al.  Time-to-contact judgment in the locomotion of adults and preschool children. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  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.

[25]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Calibration of Distance and Size Does Not Calibrate Shape Information: Comparison of Dynamic Monocular and Static and Dynamic Binocular Vision , 2005 .

[26]  Mats Lind,et al.  Large continuous perspective transformations are necessary and sufficient for accurate perception of metric shape , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  Tarow Indow,et al.  AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE LUNEBURG THEORY OF BINOCULAR SPACE PERCEPTION (1):THE 3-AND 4-POINT EXPERIMENTS , 1962 .

[28]  Geoffrey P Bingham,et al.  Calibrating reach distance to visual targets. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Simon Grant,et al.  Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  E. Pedhazur.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction , 1982 .

[31]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[32]  J T Todd,et al.  The perception of 3-dimensional affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  Simon J Watt,et al.  Binocular cues are important in controlling the grasp but not the reach in natural prehension movements , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[34]  S. Vogt,et al.  Vision of the hand and environmental context in human prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  Geoff P. Bingham,et al.  Reaching with feeling , 2004 .

[36]  J T Todd,et al.  The visual perception of smoothly curved surfaces from minimal apparent motion sequences , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  J T Todd,et al.  The perceptual analysis of structure from motion for rotating objects undergoing affine stretching transformations , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[38]  Mark F. Bradshaw,et al.  Reaching for virtual objects: binocular disparity and the control of prehension , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[39]  Hideko F. Norman,et al.  Visual discrimination of local surface structure: Slant, tilt, and curvedness , 2006, Vision Research.

[40]  James T Todd,et al.  The visual perception of 3-D shape from multiple cues: Are observers capable of perceiving metric structure? , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[41]  J. Todd,et al.  Systematic distortion of perceived three-dimensional structure from motion and binocular stereopsis. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  Tarow Indow,et al.  AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE LUNEBURG THEORY OF BINOCULAR SPACE PERCEPTION (2):THE ALLEY EXPERIMENTS , 1962 .

[43]  J T Todd,et al.  Distortions of Three-Dimensional Space in the Perceptual Analysis of Motion and Stereo , 1995, Perception.

[44]  Simon J Watt,et al.  The visual control of reaching and grasping: binocular disparity and motion parallax. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  Eli Brenner,et al.  On the relation between object shape and grasping kinematics. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[46]  Mats Lind,et al.  Metric 3D Structure in Visualizations , 2003, Inf. Vis..

[47]  Andrew Glennerster,et al.  The task-dependent use of binocular disparity and motion parallax information , 2000, Vision Research.

[48]  M. Arbib,et al.  Opposition Space as a Structuring Concept for the Analysis of Skilled Hand Movements , 1986 .

[49]  W. Epstein,et al.  Perception of space and motion , 1995 .