Learning to perceive the relative mass of colliding balls: The effects of ratio scaling and feedback

The theory of direct perception holds that competent observers are able to detect optical patterns that specify the relative mass of colliding balls. Heuristic theorists, on the other hand, claim that judgments of relative mass are based on variables that do not specify relative mass. We contrasted these views with an experiment in which participants were given feedback on their ratio-scaled estimates of the relative mass of simulated colliding balls. Correlations between judged relative mass and various kinetic and kinematic measures of the collisions revealed that (1) judgments of relative mass become more accurate with feedback, (2) different observers use different variables, (3) during training, many observers change which variables they use, (4) before training, observers tend to use nonspecifying variables or combinations thereof, (5) after a minimal amount of training, at least some observers seem to detect mass-specifying information, and (6) the judgments do not support a generalization of the heuristic model of Gilden and Proffitt (1989,1994). These findings suggest that direct perception of relative mass is a skill that can be developed through appropriate training.

[1]  A. Michotte.  The perception of causality , 1963 .

[2]  N. A. Bernshteĭn.  The co-ordination and regulation of movements , 1967 .

[3]  B. Kintz,et al.  Computational Handbook of Statistics , 1968 .

[4]  S. Runeson.  Visual prediction of collision with natural and nonnatural motion functions , 1975 .

[5]  S. Runeson.  On the possibility of "smart" perceptual mechanisms. , 1977, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[6]  J T Todd,et al.  Visual Perception of Relative Mass in Dynamic Events , 1982, Perception.

[7]  S. Runeson.  On visual perception of dynamic events , 1983 .

[8]  S. Runeson,et al.  Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person and action perception: Expe , 1983 .

[9]  B. Kintz,et al.  Computational Handbook of Satistics , 1987 .

[10]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Understanding natural dynamics. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  D R Proffitt,et al.  Understanding collision dynamics. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  S. Runeson,et al.  The indispensability of precollision kinematics in the visual perception of relative mass , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Heuristic judgment of mass ratio in two-body collisions , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  S. Runeson.  Support for the cue-heuristic model is based on suboptimal observer performance: Response to Gilden and Proffitt (1994) , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  P. Beek,et al.  The State of Ecological Psychology , 1995 .

[16]  Heiko Hecht,et al.  Heuristics and invariants in dynamic event perception: Immunized concepts or nonstatements? , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  C. Michaels,et al.  Higher order and lower order variables in the visual perception of relative pulling force. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Henrik Olsson,et al.  Visual perception of dynamic properties: cue heuristics versus direct-perceptual competence. , 2000, Psychological review.

[19]  D. M. Jacobs,et al.  Learning to visually perceive the relative mass of colliding balls in globally and locally constrained task ecologies. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.