Abstract

An array of moving circular stimuli was used to determine whether perceived speed is affected by the oculomotor responses associated with changes in viewing distance. The perceived speed of stimuli viewed at either 0.33 or 1.33m was compared to the perceived speed of a similar stimulus viewed at a distance of 5.5m. In addition, a control condition was run in which changes in perceived speed were compared for monocular viewing of the 0.33m and 5.5m stimuli. In the binocular condition, there were statistically significant decreases in perceived speed of about 11% for the 0.33m viewing distance, and about 6.5% for the 1.33m viewing distance. There was no significant decrease in perceived speed in the monocular condition. This latter finding, along with the similar appearance of the near and far stimuli in the monocular condition, suggests that ocular vergence (as opposed to accommodation or vergence–accommodation) was the primary determinant of the change in perceived speed with changes in binocular viewing distance. Although the change in perceived speed with fixation distance was relatively small, the data from all observers were in the direction of speed constancy. Thus, to the extent that vergence is a cue to egocentric distance, the present data suggest that egocentric distance is used to scale the perceived speed of targets moving at different distances from the observer.

© 2008 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. W. C. Gogel and J. D. Tietz, “A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance,” Vision Res. 19, 1161-1170 (1979).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. J. Hochberg, “Perception II: space and motion,” in Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology, 3rd ed., J.W.Kling and L.A.Riggs, eds. (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971).
  3. R. W. Reading, Binocular Vision (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 103-111.
  4. D. A. Owens and H. W. Leibowitz, “Perceptual and motor consequences of tonic vergence,” in Vergence Eye Movements: Basic and Clinical Aspects, C.M.Schor and K.J.Ciufredda, eds. (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 25-74.
  5. H. A. Sedgwick, “Space perception,” in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. 1: Sensory Processes and Perception, K.R.Boff, L.Kaufman, and J.P.Thomas, eds. (Wiley, 1986), Chap. 21, pp. 1-57.
  6. E. G. Heinemann, E. Tulving, and J. Nachmias, “The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size,” Am. J. Psychol. 72, 32-45 (1959).
    [CrossRef]
  7. H. W. Leibowitz, K. Shiina, and R. T. Hennessy, “Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 12, 497-500 (1972).
    [CrossRef]
  8. M. K. Komoda and H. Ono, “Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception,” Percept. Psychophys. 15, 353-360 (1974).
    [CrossRef]
  9. H. Wallach and L. Floor, “The use of size matching to demonstrate the effectiveness of accommodation and convergence as cues for distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 10, 423-428 (1971).
    [CrossRef]
  10. S. P. McKee and L. Welch, “Is there a constancy for velocity?” Vision Res. 29, 553-561 (1989).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. S. P. McKee and H. S. Smallman, “Size and speed constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 373-408.
  12. I. Rock, A. L. Hill, and M. Fineman, “Speed constancy as a function of size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 4, 37-40 (1968).
    [CrossRef]
  13. H. Wallach, “On the constancy of visual speed,” Psychol. Rev. 46, 541-552 (1939).
    [CrossRef]
  14. W. Epstein, “Two factors in the perception of velocity at a distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 24, 105-114 (1978).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. E. Zohary and A. C. Sittig, “Mechanisms of velocity constancy,” Vision Res. 33, 2467-2478 (1993).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. S. K. Fischer and K. J. Ciufredda, “Accommodation and apparent distance,” Perception 17, 609-621 (1988).
    [CrossRef]
  17. H. K. Distler, K. R. Gegenfurtner, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and M. J. Hawken, “Velocity constancy in a virtual reality environment,” Perception 29, 1423-1435 (2000).
    [CrossRef]
  18. E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, J. Dichgans, and T. H. Brandt, “Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: linear vs. angular velocity?” Percept. Psychophys. 17, 549-554 (1975).
    [CrossRef]
  19. Rock, briefly describe a control condition related to their Experiment 2, in which they scaled the extent of target motion but not the size of the target. This leaves open the possibility that target size, and not target distance, mediated the degree of speed constancy reported (see also ).
  20. E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, and J. Dichgans, “Motion constancy dependent upon perceived distance and the spatial frequency of the stimulus pattern,” Percept. Psychophys. 19, 485-491 (1976).
    [CrossRef]
  21. McKee and Welch varied perceived distance using a stereoscope, whereas Wist varied perceived distance using unequal luminances to the two eyes (i.e., the Pulfrich effect). Vergence was not varied in either of these studies, and the retinal disparities induced would not be expected to provide the necessary cues to egocentric distance [see also ].
  22. J. M. Foley, “Disparity increase with convergence for constant perceptual criteria,” Percept. Psychophys. 2, 605-608 (1967).
    [CrossRef]
  23. R. Patterson, “Human factors of 3-D displays,” J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 15, 861-871 (2007).
    [CrossRef]
  24. H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404-412 (1963).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. W. Epstein and W. J. Cody, “Perception of relative velocity: a revision of the hypothesis of relational determinism,” Perception 9, 47-60 (1980).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zohary and Sittig asked observers to view a monitor located at different optical distances from two stimulus apertures that were the same distance from the observer. Although small fixation points were provided on the monitor, the apertures may have provided a more salient fixation location. It is also not clear how the data may have been affected by the double images that would be expected with this experimental arrangement.
  27. T. S. Collett, U. Schwartz, and E. C. Sobel, “The interaction of oculomotor cues and stimulus size in stereoscopic depth perception,” Perception 20, 733-754. (1991).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. H. W. Leibowitz and D. Moore, “Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 345-358 (1966).
    [CrossRef]
  29. T. S. Collett and A. J. Parker, “Depth constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 409-435.
  30. A. Pouget and T. J. Sejnowski, “A neural model of the cortical representation of egocentric distance,” Cereb. Cortex 4, 314-329 (1994).
    [PubMed]
  31. V. Walsh and J. Kulikowski, Perceptual Constancy (Cambridge U. Press, 1998).
  32. In addition to vergence, disparity is also a binocular cue. However, disparity cannot scale perceived speed because it is only a relative depth cue that must itself be scaled by egocentric distance.

2007 (1)

R. Patterson, “Human factors of 3-D displays,” J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 15, 861-871 (2007).
[CrossRef]

2000 (1)

H. K. Distler, K. R. Gegenfurtner, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and M. J. Hawken, “Velocity constancy in a virtual reality environment,” Perception 29, 1423-1435 (2000).
[CrossRef]

1994 (1)

A. Pouget and T. J. Sejnowski, “A neural model of the cortical representation of egocentric distance,” Cereb. Cortex 4, 314-329 (1994).
[PubMed]

1993 (1)

E. Zohary and A. C. Sittig, “Mechanisms of velocity constancy,” Vision Res. 33, 2467-2478 (1993).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1991 (1)

T. S. Collett, U. Schwartz, and E. C. Sobel, “The interaction of oculomotor cues and stimulus size in stereoscopic depth perception,” Perception 20, 733-754. (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1989 (1)

S. P. McKee and L. Welch, “Is there a constancy for velocity?” Vision Res. 29, 553-561 (1989).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1988 (1)

S. K. Fischer and K. J. Ciufredda, “Accommodation and apparent distance,” Perception 17, 609-621 (1988).
[CrossRef]

1980 (1)

W. Epstein and W. J. Cody, “Perception of relative velocity: a revision of the hypothesis of relational determinism,” Perception 9, 47-60 (1980).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1979 (1)

W. C. Gogel and J. D. Tietz, “A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance,” Vision Res. 19, 1161-1170 (1979).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1978 (1)

W. Epstein, “Two factors in the perception of velocity at a distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 24, 105-114 (1978).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1976 (1)

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, and J. Dichgans, “Motion constancy dependent upon perceived distance and the spatial frequency of the stimulus pattern,” Percept. Psychophys. 19, 485-491 (1976).
[CrossRef]

1975 (1)

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, J. Dichgans, and T. H. Brandt, “Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: linear vs. angular velocity?” Percept. Psychophys. 17, 549-554 (1975).
[CrossRef]

1974 (1)

M. K. Komoda and H. Ono, “Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception,” Percept. Psychophys. 15, 353-360 (1974).
[CrossRef]

1972 (1)

H. W. Leibowitz, K. Shiina, and R. T. Hennessy, “Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 12, 497-500 (1972).
[CrossRef]

1971 (1)

H. Wallach and L. Floor, “The use of size matching to demonstrate the effectiveness of accommodation and convergence as cues for distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 10, 423-428 (1971).
[CrossRef]

1968 (1)

I. Rock, A. L. Hill, and M. Fineman, “Speed constancy as a function of size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 4, 37-40 (1968).
[CrossRef]

1967 (1)

J. M. Foley, “Disparity increase with convergence for constant perceptual criteria,” Percept. Psychophys. 2, 605-608 (1967).
[CrossRef]

1966 (1)

H. W. Leibowitz and D. Moore, “Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 345-358 (1966).
[CrossRef]

1963 (1)

H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404-412 (1963).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1959 (1)

E. G. Heinemann, E. Tulving, and J. Nachmias, “The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size,” Am. J. Psychol. 72, 32-45 (1959).
[CrossRef]

1939 (1)

H. Wallach, “On the constancy of visual speed,” Psychol. Rev. 46, 541-552 (1939).
[CrossRef]

Brandt, T. H.

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, J. Dichgans, and T. H. Brandt, “Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: linear vs. angular velocity?” Percept. Psychophys. 17, 549-554 (1975).
[CrossRef]

Ciufredda, K. J.

S. K. Fischer and K. J. Ciufredda, “Accommodation and apparent distance,” Perception 17, 609-621 (1988).
[CrossRef]

Cody, W. J.

W. Epstein and W. J. Cody, “Perception of relative velocity: a revision of the hypothesis of relational determinism,” Perception 9, 47-60 (1980).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Collett, T. S.

T. S. Collett, U. Schwartz, and E. C. Sobel, “The interaction of oculomotor cues and stimulus size in stereoscopic depth perception,” Perception 20, 733-754. (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

T. S. Collett and A. J. Parker, “Depth constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 409-435.

Dichgans, J.

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, and J. Dichgans, “Motion constancy dependent upon perceived distance and the spatial frequency of the stimulus pattern,” Percept. Psychophys. 19, 485-491 (1976).
[CrossRef]

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, J. Dichgans, and T. H. Brandt, “Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: linear vs. angular velocity?” Percept. Psychophys. 17, 549-554 (1975).
[CrossRef]

Diener, H. C.

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, and J. Dichgans, “Motion constancy dependent upon perceived distance and the spatial frequency of the stimulus pattern,” Percept. Psychophys. 19, 485-491 (1976).
[CrossRef]

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, J. Dichgans, and T. H. Brandt, “Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: linear vs. angular velocity?” Percept. Psychophys. 17, 549-554 (1975).
[CrossRef]

Distler, H. K.

H. K. Distler, K. R. Gegenfurtner, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and M. J. Hawken, “Velocity constancy in a virtual reality environment,” Perception 29, 1423-1435 (2000).
[CrossRef]

Epstein, W.

W. Epstein and W. J. Cody, “Perception of relative velocity: a revision of the hypothesis of relational determinism,” Perception 9, 47-60 (1980).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

W. Epstein, “Two factors in the perception of velocity at a distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 24, 105-114 (1978).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Fineman, M.

I. Rock, A. L. Hill, and M. Fineman, “Speed constancy as a function of size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 4, 37-40 (1968).
[CrossRef]

Fischer, S. K.

S. K. Fischer and K. J. Ciufredda, “Accommodation and apparent distance,” Perception 17, 609-621 (1988).
[CrossRef]

Floor, L.

H. Wallach and L. Floor, “The use of size matching to demonstrate the effectiveness of accommodation and convergence as cues for distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 10, 423-428 (1971).
[CrossRef]

Foley, J. M.

J. M. Foley, “Disparity increase with convergence for constant perceptual criteria,” Percept. Psychophys. 2, 605-608 (1967).
[CrossRef]

Gegenfurtner, K. R.

H. K. Distler, K. R. Gegenfurtner, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and M. J. Hawken, “Velocity constancy in a virtual reality environment,” Perception 29, 1423-1435 (2000).
[CrossRef]

Gogel, W. C.

W. C. Gogel and J. D. Tietz, “A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance,” Vision Res. 19, 1161-1170 (1979).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Hawken, M. J.

H. K. Distler, K. R. Gegenfurtner, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and M. J. Hawken, “Velocity constancy in a virtual reality environment,” Perception 29, 1423-1435 (2000).
[CrossRef]

Heinemann, E. G.

E. G. Heinemann, E. Tulving, and J. Nachmias, “The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size,” Am. J. Psychol. 72, 32-45 (1959).
[CrossRef]

Hennessy, R. T.

H. W. Leibowitz, K. Shiina, and R. T. Hennessy, “Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 12, 497-500 (1972).
[CrossRef]

Hill, A. L.

I. Rock, A. L. Hill, and M. Fineman, “Speed constancy as a function of size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 4, 37-40 (1968).
[CrossRef]

Hochberg, J.

J. Hochberg, “Perception II: space and motion,” in Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology, 3rd ed., J.W.Kling and L.A.Riggs, eds. (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971).

Komoda, M. K.

M. K. Komoda and H. Ono, “Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception,” Percept. Psychophys. 15, 353-360 (1974).
[CrossRef]

Kulikowski, J.

V. Walsh and J. Kulikowski, Perceptual Constancy (Cambridge U. Press, 1998).

Leibowitz, H. W.

H. W. Leibowitz, K. Shiina, and R. T. Hennessy, “Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 12, 497-500 (1972).
[CrossRef]

H. W. Leibowitz and D. Moore, “Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 345-358 (1966).
[CrossRef]

D. A. Owens and H. W. Leibowitz, “Perceptual and motor consequences of tonic vergence,” in Vergence Eye Movements: Basic and Clinical Aspects, C.M.Schor and K.J.Ciufredda, eds. (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 25-74.

McKee,

McKee and Welch varied perceived distance using a stereoscope, whereas Wist varied perceived distance using unequal luminances to the two eyes (i.e., the Pulfrich effect). Vergence was not varied in either of these studies, and the retinal disparities induced would not be expected to provide the necessary cues to egocentric distance [see also ].

McKee, S. P.

S. P. McKee and L. Welch, “Is there a constancy for velocity?” Vision Res. 29, 553-561 (1989).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

S. P. McKee and H. S. Smallman, “Size and speed constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 373-408.

Moore, D.

H. W. Leibowitz and D. Moore, “Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 345-358 (1966).
[CrossRef]

Nachmias, J.

E. G. Heinemann, E. Tulving, and J. Nachmias, “The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size,” Am. J. Psychol. 72, 32-45 (1959).
[CrossRef]

Ono, H.

M. K. Komoda and H. Ono, “Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception,” Percept. Psychophys. 15, 353-360 (1974).
[CrossRef]

Owens, D. A.

D. A. Owens and H. W. Leibowitz, “Perceptual and motor consequences of tonic vergence,” in Vergence Eye Movements: Basic and Clinical Aspects, C.M.Schor and K.J.Ciufredda, eds. (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 25-74.

Parker, A. J.

T. S. Collett and A. J. Parker, “Depth constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 409-435.

Patterson, R.

R. Patterson, “Human factors of 3-D displays,” J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 15, 861-871 (2007).
[CrossRef]

Pouget, A.

A. Pouget and T. J. Sejnowski, “A neural model of the cortical representation of egocentric distance,” Cereb. Cortex 4, 314-329 (1994).
[PubMed]

Reading, R. W.

R. W. Reading, Binocular Vision (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 103-111.

Rock,

Rock, briefly describe a control condition related to their Experiment 2, in which they scaled the extent of target motion but not the size of the target. This leaves open the possibility that target size, and not target distance, mediated the degree of speed constancy reported (see also ).

Rock, I.

I. Rock, A. L. Hill, and M. Fineman, “Speed constancy as a function of size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 4, 37-40 (1968).
[CrossRef]

Schwartz, U.

T. S. Collett, U. Schwartz, and E. C. Sobel, “The interaction of oculomotor cues and stimulus size in stereoscopic depth perception,” Perception 20, 733-754. (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Sedgwick, H. A.

H. A. Sedgwick, “Space perception,” in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. 1: Sensory Processes and Perception, K.R.Boff, L.Kaufman, and J.P.Thomas, eds. (Wiley, 1986), Chap. 21, pp. 1-57.

Sejnowski, T. J.

A. Pouget and T. J. Sejnowski, “A neural model of the cortical representation of egocentric distance,” Cereb. Cortex 4, 314-329 (1994).
[PubMed]

Shiina, K.

H. W. Leibowitz, K. Shiina, and R. T. Hennessy, “Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 12, 497-500 (1972).
[CrossRef]

Sittig, A. C.

E. Zohary and A. C. Sittig, “Mechanisms of velocity constancy,” Vision Res. 33, 2467-2478 (1993).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Smallman, H. S.

S. P. McKee and H. S. Smallman, “Size and speed constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 373-408.

Sobel, E. C.

T. S. Collett, U. Schwartz, and E. C. Sobel, “The interaction of oculomotor cues and stimulus size in stereoscopic depth perception,” Perception 20, 733-754. (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Tietz, J. D.

W. C. Gogel and J. D. Tietz, “A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance,” Vision Res. 19, 1161-1170 (1979).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Tulving, E.

E. G. Heinemann, E. Tulving, and J. Nachmias, “The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size,” Am. J. Psychol. 72, 32-45 (1959).
[CrossRef]

van Veen, H. A. H. C.

H. K. Distler, K. R. Gegenfurtner, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and M. J. Hawken, “Velocity constancy in a virtual reality environment,” Perception 29, 1423-1435 (2000).
[CrossRef]

Wallach, H.

H. Wallach and L. Floor, “The use of size matching to demonstrate the effectiveness of accommodation and convergence as cues for distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 10, 423-428 (1971).
[CrossRef]

H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404-412 (1963).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

H. Wallach, “On the constancy of visual speed,” Psychol. Rev. 46, 541-552 (1939).
[CrossRef]

Walsh, V.

V. Walsh and J. Kulikowski, Perceptual Constancy (Cambridge U. Press, 1998).

Welch,

McKee and Welch varied perceived distance using a stereoscope, whereas Wist varied perceived distance using unequal luminances to the two eyes (i.e., the Pulfrich effect). Vergence was not varied in either of these studies, and the retinal disparities induced would not be expected to provide the necessary cues to egocentric distance [see also ].

Welch, L.

S. P. McKee and L. Welch, “Is there a constancy for velocity?” Vision Res. 29, 553-561 (1989).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Wist,

McKee and Welch varied perceived distance using a stereoscope, whereas Wist varied perceived distance using unequal luminances to the two eyes (i.e., the Pulfrich effect). Vergence was not varied in either of these studies, and the retinal disparities induced would not be expected to provide the necessary cues to egocentric distance [see also ].

Wist, E. R.

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, and J. Dichgans, “Motion constancy dependent upon perceived distance and the spatial frequency of the stimulus pattern,” Percept. Psychophys. 19, 485-491 (1976).
[CrossRef]

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, J. Dichgans, and T. H. Brandt, “Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: linear vs. angular velocity?” Percept. Psychophys. 17, 549-554 (1975).
[CrossRef]

Zohary, E.

E. Zohary and A. C. Sittig, “Mechanisms of velocity constancy,” Vision Res. 33, 2467-2478 (1993).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Zuckerman, C.

H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404-412 (1963).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Am. J. Psychol. (2)

E. G. Heinemann, E. Tulving, and J. Nachmias, “The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size,” Am. J. Psychol. 72, 32-45 (1959).
[CrossRef]

H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404-412 (1963).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cereb. Cortex (1)

A. Pouget and T. J. Sejnowski, “A neural model of the cortical representation of egocentric distance,” Cereb. Cortex 4, 314-329 (1994).
[PubMed]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. (1)

H. W. Leibowitz and D. Moore, “Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 345-358 (1966).
[CrossRef]

J. Soc. Inf. Disp. (1)

R. Patterson, “Human factors of 3-D displays,” J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 15, 861-871 (2007).
[CrossRef]

Percept. Psychophys. (8)

J. M. Foley, “Disparity increase with convergence for constant perceptual criteria,” Percept. Psychophys. 2, 605-608 (1967).
[CrossRef]

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, and J. Dichgans, “Motion constancy dependent upon perceived distance and the spatial frequency of the stimulus pattern,” Percept. Psychophys. 19, 485-491 (1976).
[CrossRef]

H. W. Leibowitz, K. Shiina, and R. T. Hennessy, “Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 12, 497-500 (1972).
[CrossRef]

M. K. Komoda and H. Ono, “Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception,” Percept. Psychophys. 15, 353-360 (1974).
[CrossRef]

H. Wallach and L. Floor, “The use of size matching to demonstrate the effectiveness of accommodation and convergence as cues for distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 10, 423-428 (1971).
[CrossRef]

I. Rock, A. L. Hill, and M. Fineman, “Speed constancy as a function of size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 4, 37-40 (1968).
[CrossRef]

W. Epstein, “Two factors in the perception of velocity at a distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 24, 105-114 (1978).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, J. Dichgans, and T. H. Brandt, “Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: linear vs. angular velocity?” Percept. Psychophys. 17, 549-554 (1975).
[CrossRef]

Perception (4)

S. K. Fischer and K. J. Ciufredda, “Accommodation and apparent distance,” Perception 17, 609-621 (1988).
[CrossRef]

H. K. Distler, K. R. Gegenfurtner, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and M. J. Hawken, “Velocity constancy in a virtual reality environment,” Perception 29, 1423-1435 (2000).
[CrossRef]

W. Epstein and W. J. Cody, “Perception of relative velocity: a revision of the hypothesis of relational determinism,” Perception 9, 47-60 (1980).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

T. S. Collett, U. Schwartz, and E. C. Sobel, “The interaction of oculomotor cues and stimulus size in stereoscopic depth perception,” Perception 20, 733-754. (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Psychol. Rev. (1)

H. Wallach, “On the constancy of visual speed,” Psychol. Rev. 46, 541-552 (1939).
[CrossRef]

Vision Res. (3)

E. Zohary and A. C. Sittig, “Mechanisms of velocity constancy,” Vision Res. 33, 2467-2478 (1993).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

S. P. McKee and L. Welch, “Is there a constancy for velocity?” Vision Res. 29, 553-561 (1989).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

W. C. Gogel and J. D. Tietz, “A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance,” Vision Res. 19, 1161-1170 (1979).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Other (11)

J. Hochberg, “Perception II: space and motion,” in Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology, 3rd ed., J.W.Kling and L.A.Riggs, eds. (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971).

R. W. Reading, Binocular Vision (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 103-111.

D. A. Owens and H. W. Leibowitz, “Perceptual and motor consequences of tonic vergence,” in Vergence Eye Movements: Basic and Clinical Aspects, C.M.Schor and K.J.Ciufredda, eds. (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 25-74.

H. A. Sedgwick, “Space perception,” in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. 1: Sensory Processes and Perception, K.R.Boff, L.Kaufman, and J.P.Thomas, eds. (Wiley, 1986), Chap. 21, pp. 1-57.

S. P. McKee and H. S. Smallman, “Size and speed constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 373-408.

Rock, briefly describe a control condition related to their Experiment 2, in which they scaled the extent of target motion but not the size of the target. This leaves open the possibility that target size, and not target distance, mediated the degree of speed constancy reported (see also ).

V. Walsh and J. Kulikowski, Perceptual Constancy (Cambridge U. Press, 1998).

In addition to vergence, disparity is also a binocular cue. However, disparity cannot scale perceived speed because it is only a relative depth cue that must itself be scaled by egocentric distance.

Zohary and Sittig asked observers to view a monitor located at different optical distances from two stimulus apertures that were the same distance from the observer. Although small fixation points were provided on the monitor, the apertures may have provided a more salient fixation location. It is also not clear how the data may have been affected by the double images that would be expected with this experimental arrangement.

T. S. Collett and A. J. Parker, “Depth constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 409-435.

McKee and Welch varied perceived distance using a stereoscope, whereas Wist varied perceived distance using unequal luminances to the two eyes (i.e., the Pulfrich effect). Vergence was not varied in either of these studies, and the retinal disparities induced would not be expected to provide the necessary cues to egocentric distance [see also ].

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (6)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Diagram (not to scale) of the display system consisting of a far ( 5.5 m ) CRT display and a near (either 0.33 or 1.33 m ) CRT display. The inset at the top shows the dimensions and approximate appearance of the random-spot stimulus array.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Typical vergence responses obtained as one observer successively verged to the far ( 5.5 m ) and near test stimuli. The upper and lower traces correspond to near distances of 0.33 and 1.33 m , respectively.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Speed of the 0.33 m near stimulus that matched that of the far ( 5.5 m ) stimulus for both the monocular (-○-) and binocular (-●-) viewing conditions. The greater matched speed for the near stimulus indicates that the near stimulus was perceived to move more slowly than the far stimulus. Data are shown for each of the six observers tested. The error bars for the mean data represent ± 1 s.e.m. (standard error of the mean).

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

The speed of the 1.33 m near stimulus that matched that of the far ( 5.5 m ) stimulus for the binocular viewing condition. The greater matched speed for the near stimulus indicates that the near stimulus was perceived to move more slowly than the far stimulus. Data are shown for each of the five observers tested. The error bars for the mean data represent ± 1 s.e.m. (standard error of the mean).

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Comparison of the mean data of Figs. 3, 4 with the predictions derived from assuming either no constancy (retinal-velocity matching) or full constancy (physical-velocity matching): (top) 1.33 m viewing distance; (bottom) 0.33 m viewing distance.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Proportional increase in the perceived speed of the near stimulus, which was obtained by scaling the mean speed increases shown in Figs. 3, 4 by the speed of the standard stimulus. The error bars represent ± 1 s.e.m. (standard error of the mean).

Metrics