de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Poster

The influence of vision on the estimation of walked distance

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84378

Campos,  J
Department Empirical Inference, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Campos, J., Hsiao C, Chan, G., & Sun, H. (2005). The influence of vision on the estimation of walked distance. Poster presented at Fifth Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society (VSS 2005), Sarasota, FL, USA.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-D485-B
Abstract
Traversed distance estimation is influenced by both visual cues (particularly optic flow) and locomotor cues (proprioceptive/efferent copy and vestibular). While evidence suggests that locomotor cues alone can be used to estimate distance, little is known about the role of optic flow when both visual and locomotor cues are available simultaneously. The current study employed a consecutive cue-conflict paradigm to compare distance estimates obtained via locomotor cues alone to those obtained via both locomotor and optic flow cues. This experiment took place in a large, open, outdoor environment. Subjects (Ss) were presented with two distances, which they were informed were identical in magnitude; one via blindfolded locomotion (L) and one via locomotion with vision (LV) (with the order of the two randomized). For the majority of the trials, the magnitude of the two stimulus distances was indeed the same (congruent), but for a small subset of trials the two distances differed in magnitude (incongruent). Subsequently, Ss produced an estimate by adjusting the distance of a visual target to match the learned distance. Overall, a small underestimation was observed in all cases. For congruent trials, when the same cues were present in both stimulus distances, estimates were slightly shorter for LV than for L. However, when different cues were present in the two stimulus distances, there was also an effect of cue presentation order. When LV occurred second, distance estimates were much shorter than when LV occurred first. For incongruent trials, the effect of cue was compounded with a powerful effect of distance presentation order. When the longer distance was presented second, estimates more closely approximated the longer distance, whereas when the shorter distance was presented second, estimates more closely approximated the shorter distance. This effect was more prominent when LV occurred second, indicating a dominant effect of vision and an interaction between cue and presentation order.