Time to contact (TTC) is specified optically by tau, and studies suggest that observers are sensitive to this information. However, TTC judgements also are influenced by other sources of information, including pictorial depth cues. Therefore, it is useful to identify these sources of information and to determine whether and how their effects combine when multiple sources are available. We evaluated the effect of five depth cues on TTC judgements. Results indicate that relative size, height in field, occlusion, and motion parallax influence TTC judgements. When multiple cues are available, an integration (rather than selection) strategy is used. Finally, the combined effects of multiple cues are not always consistent with a strict additive model and may be task dependent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN. H. (1974). Algebraic models in perception.Handbook of perception: Vol. 2. Psychophysical judgement and measurement.CarteretteE. C.FriedmanM. P.New York: Academic Press215–298.
2.
AndersonN. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theoryNew York: Academic Press.
3.
AndersonN. H. (1982). Methods of information integration theoryNew York: Academic Press.
4.
AndersonN. H. (1983). Cognitive algebra in intuitive physics.Modern issues in perception.GeisslerH.BuffartH. F. J. M.LeeuwenbergE. L. J.SarrisV.Amsterdam: North Holland229–253.
5.
AndersonN. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognitionMahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6.
BradshawM. F.RogersB. J. (1996). The interaction of binocular disparity and motion parallax in the computation of depth.Vision Research36, 3457–3468.
7.
BrunoN.CuttingJ. E. (1988). Minimodularity and the perception of layout.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117, 161–170.
8.
CuttingJ. E.BrunoN. (1988). Additivity, subadditivity, and the use of visual information: A reply to Massaro (1988).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117, 422–424.
9.
CuttingJ. E.BrunoN.BradyN. P.MooreC. (1992). Selectivity, scope, and simplicity of models: A lesson from fitting judgements of perceived depth.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General121, 364–381.
10.
CuttingJ. E.WangR. F. (2000). Heading judgments in minimal environments: The value of a heuristic when invariants are rare.Perception & Psychophysics62, 1146–1159.
11.
CuttingJ. E.WangR. F.FluckigerM.BaumbergerB. (1999). Human heading judgments and object-based motion information.Vision Research39, 1079–1105.
12.
DeLuciaP. R. (1991). Pictorial and motion-based information for depth perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance17, 738–748.
13.
DeLuciaP. R. (1995). Effects of pictorial relative size and ground-intercept information on judgments about potential collisions in perspective displays.Human Factors37, 528–538.
14.
DeLuciaP. R. (2002). Judgments of time to contact when an approaching object is partially concealed by a static or moving occluder [Abstract].Journal of Vision2, 7348a DOI: 10.1167/2.7.348http://Journalofvision.org/2/7/348/.
15.
DeLuciaP. R.Multiple information sources influence time-to-contact judgments: Do heuristics accommodate limits in sensory and cognitive processes?.Advances in psychology series: Theories of time-to-contact.HechtH.SavelsburghG. J. P.North-Holland, Elsevierin press.
16.
DeLuciaP. R.LiddellG. W. (1998). Cognitive motion extrapolation and cognitive clocking in prediction motion talks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24, 901–914.
17.
DeLuciaP. R.MeyerL. E. (1999). Judgments about the time to contact between two objects during simulated self-motion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25, 1813–1833.
18.
DeLuciaP. R.NovakJ. B. (1997). Judgments of relative time-to- contact of more than two approaching objects: Toward a method.Perception & Psychophysics59, 913–928.
19.
DeLuciaP. R.WarrenR. (1994). Pictorial and motion-based depth information during active control of self-motion: Size-arrival effects on collision avoidance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 783–798.
20.
DosherB. A.SperlingG.WurstS. A. (1986). Tradeoffs between stereopsis and proximity luminance covariance as determinants of perceived 3D structure.Vision Research26, 973–990.
21.
DurginF. H. (1996). Visual aftereffect of texture density contingent on color of frame.Perception & Psychophysics58, 207–223.
22.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perceptionBoston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
23.
GrayR.ReganD. (1998). Accuracy of estimating time to collision using binocular and monocular information.Vision Research38, 499–512.
24.
HillsB. L. (1975). Some studies of movement perception, age and accidentsCrowthorne, UK: Department of the Environment, Transport and Road Research Laboratory Rep. No. SR137.
25.
HochbergJ. (1986). Representation of motion and space in video and cinematic displays.Handbook of perception and human performance.BoffK.ThomasJ.KaufmanL.Toronto: Wiley1–64.
26.
HoffmannE. R.MortimerR. G. (1994). Drivers’ estimates of time to collision.Accident Analysis and Prevention26, 511–520.
27.
JohnstonE. B.CummingB. G.LandyM. S. (1994). Integration of stereopsis and motion shape cues.Vision Research34, 2259–2265.
28.
KaiserM. K.MowafyL. (1993). Optical specification of time-to-passage: Observers’ sensitivity to global tau.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19, 1028–1040.
29.
KerzelD.HechtH.KimN. (1999). Image velocity, not tau, explains arrival-time judgments from global optical flow.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25, 1540–1555.
30.
KunnapasT. (1968). Distance perception as a function of available visual cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology77, 523–529.
31.
LandyM. S.MaloneyL. T.JohnstonE. B.YoungM. (1995). Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: In defence of weak fusion.Vision Research35, 389–412.
32.
LeeD. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision.Perception5, 437–459.
33.
LevittH. (1970). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America49, 467–477.
34.
MassaroD. W. (1988). Ambiguity in perception and experimentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General777, 417–421.
35.
MassaroD. W.FriedmanD. (1990). Models of integration given multiple sources of information.Psychological Review97, 225–252.
36.
PoomL.BorjessonE. (1999). Perceptual depth synthesis in the visual system as revealed by selective adaptation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25, 504–517.
37.
RushtonS. K.WannJ. P. (1999). Weighted combination of size and disparity: A computational model for timing a ball catch.Nature Neuroscience2, 186–190.
38.
SchiffW.DetwilerM. L. (1979). Information used in judging impending collision.Perception8, 647–658.
39.
SchiffW.OldakR. (1990). Accuracy of judging time to arrival: Effects of modality, trajectory, and gender.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance16, 303–316.
40.
ToddJ. T. (1981). Visual information about moving objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance7, 795–810.
41.
TresilianJ. R. (1991). Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time to contact.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance17, 865–876.
42.
TresilianJ. R. (1995). Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgement tasks.Perception & Psychophysics57, 231–245.
43.
TresilianJ. R. (1997). Revised tau hypothesis: A consideration of Wann's (1996) analyses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance23, 1272–1281.
44.
TresilianJ. R. (1999). Analysis of recent empirical challenges to an account of interceptive timing.Perception & Psychophysics61, 515–528.
45.
YakimoffN.MateeffS.EhrensteinW. H.HohnsbeinJ. (1993). Motion extrapolation performance: A linear model approach.Human Factors35, 501–510.
46.
YoungM. J.LandyM. S.MaloneyL. T. (1993). A perturbation analysis of depth perception from combinations of texture and motion cues.Vision Research33, 2685–2696.
