The human egocentric perception of approaching objects and the related perceptual processes have been of interest to researchers for several decades. This article gives a literature review on numerous studies that investigated the phenomenon when an object approaches an observer (or the other way around) with the goal to single out factors that influence the perceptual process. A taxonomy of metrics is followed by a breakdown of different experimental measurement methods. Thereinafter, potential factors affecting the judgment of approaching objects are compiled and debated while divided into human factors (e.g., gender, age, and driving experience), compositional factors (e.g., approaching velocity, spatial distance, and observation time), and technical factors (e.g., field of view, stereoscopy, and display contrast). Experimental findings are collated, juxtaposed, and critically discussed. With virtual-reality devices having taken a tremendous developmental leap forward in the past few years, they have been able to gain ground in experimental research. Therefore, special attention in this article is also given to the perception of approaching objects in virtual environments and put in contrast to the perception in reality.
Andersen, G. J., & Enriquez, A. (2006). Aging and the detection of observer and moving object collisions. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 74–85.
2.
AnstisS. (2003).
Moving objects appear to slow down at low contrasts. Neural Networks,
16(5/6), 933–938.
3.
BanisterH.BlackburnJ. M. (1931).
An eye factor affecting proficiency at ball games. British Journal of Psychology: General Section,
21(4), 382–384.
4.
Barton, B. K., & Schwebel, D. C. (2007). The roles of age, gender, inhibitory control, and parental supervision in children's pedestrian safety. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(5), 517–526.
5.
BillingtonJ.WilkieR. M.FieldD. T.WannJ. P. (2010).
Neural processing of imminent collision in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
278(1711), 1476–1481.
6.
BlakemoreM. R.SnowdenR. J. (1999).
The effect of contrast upon perceived speed: A general phenomenon?Perception,
28(1), 33–48.
7.
BlakemoreM. R.SnowdenR. J. (2000).
Textured backgrounds alter perceived speed. Vision Research,
40(6), 629–638.
8.
BraunsteinM. L. (1976). Depth perception through motion.
New York, NY:
Academic Press.
9.
BootsmaR. J.OudejansR. R. (1993).
Visual information about time-to-collision between two objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
19(5), 1041–1052.
10.
BoringE. G. (1942). Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology.
New York, NY:
Apple-Century-Crofts.
11.
CairdJ. K.HancockP. A. (1994).
The perception of arrival time for different oncoming vehicles at an intersection. Ecological Psychology,
6(2), 83–109.
12.
CarelW. L. (1961). Visual factors in the contact analog (Technical Report 263 820).
Ithaca, NY:
General Electric at Cornell University Industry Research Park.
13.
CavalloV.LaurentM. (1988).
Visual information and skill level in time-to-collision estimation. Perception,
17(5), 623–632.
14.
CavanaghP.LeclercY. G. (1989).
Shape from shadows. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
15(1), 3–27.
15.
ConnellyM. L.ConaglenH. M.ParsonsonB. S.IslerR. B. (1998).
Child pedestrians’ crossing gap thresholds. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
30(4), 443–453.
16.
CoullJ. T.VidalF.GoulonC.NazarianB.CraigC. (2008).
Using time-to-contact information to assess potential collision modulates both visual and temporal prediction networks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2, Article 10.
17.
CuttingJ. E.MillardR. T. (1984).
Three gradients and the perception of flat and curved surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
113(2), 198–216.
18.
CuttingJ. E.VishtonP. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In EpsteinW.RogersS. (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (pp. 69–117).
San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
19.
de BellisE.Schulte-MecklenbeckM.BrucksW.HerrmannA.HertwigR. (2018).
Blind haste: As light decreases, speeding increases. PLoS One,
13(1), e0188951.
20.
DeLuciaP. R. (1991).
Pictorial and motion-based information for depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
17(3), 738–748.
21.
DeLuciaP. R. (1999).
Size-arrival effects: The potential roles of conflicts between monocular and binocular time-to-contact information, and of computer aliasing. Perception & Psychophysics,
61(6), 1168–1177.
22.
DeLuciaP. R. (2004). Multiple sources of information influence time-to-contact judgments: Do heuristics accommodate limits in sensory and cognitive processes? In HechtH.SavelsberghG. J. P. (Eds.), Advances in psychology, vol. 135: Time-to-contact (pp. 243–286).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
Elsevier.
23.
DeLuciaP. R. (2005).
Does binocular disparity or familiar size information override effects of relative size on judgements of time to contact?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A,
58(5), 865–886.
24.
DeLuciaP. R.KaiserM.BushJ.MeyerL.SweetB. (2003).
Information integration in judgements of time to contact.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A,
56(7), 1165–1189.
25.
DeLuciaP. R.PreddyD.OberfeldD. (2016).
Audiovisual integration of time-to-contact information for approaching objects.Multisensory Research,
29(4/5), 365–395.
26.
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 Performance,
20(4), 783–798.
27.
DemetreJ. D.LeeD. N.GrieveR.PitcairnT. K.Ampofo-BoatengK.ThomsonJ. A. (1993).
Young children’s learning on road-crossing simulations. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
63(2), 349–359.
28.
Demetre, J. D., Lee, D. N., Pitcairn, T. K., Grieve, R., Thomson, J. A., & Ampofo-Boateng, K. (1992). Errors in young children's decisions about traffic gaps: Experiments with roadside simulations. British Journal of Psychology, 83(2), 189–202.
29.
DommesA.CavalloV. (2011).
The role of perceptual, cognitive, and motor abilities in street-crossing decisions of young and older pedestrians. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics,
31(3), 292–301.
30.
DommesA.CavalloV. (2012).
Can simulator-based training improve street-crossing safety for elderly pedestrians?Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
15(2), 206–218.
31.
DommesA.CavalloV.DubuissonJ. B.TournierI.VienneF. (2014).
Crossing a two-way street: Comparison of young and old pedestrians. Journal of Safety Research,
50, 27–34.
32.
DommesA.CavalloV.OxleyJ. (2013).
Functional declines as predictors of risky street-crossing decisions in older pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
59, 135–143.
33.
DommesA.CavalloV.VienneF.AillerieI. (2012).
Age-related differences in street-crossing safety before and after training of older pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
44(1), 42–47.
34.
DommesA.Le LayT.VienneF.DangN. T.BeaudoinA. P.DoM. C. (2015).
Towards an explanation of age-related difficulties in crossing a two-way street. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
85, 229–238.
35.
FerrisS. H. (1972).
Motion parallax and absolute distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
95(2), 258–263.
36.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.).
London, England:
Sage Publications.
37.
FieldD. T.WannJ. P. (2005).
Perceiving time to collision activates the sensorimotor cortex. Current Biology,
15(5), 453–458.
38.
FisherS. K.CiuffredaK. J. (1988).
Accommodation and apparent distance. Perception,
17(5), 609–621.
39.
FoleyJ. M. (1991). Stereoscopic distance perception. In EllisS. R.KaiserM. K.GrunwaldA. J. (Eds.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (pp. 559–566).
London, England:
Taylor & Francis.
40.
GegenfurtnerK. R.MayserH.SharpeL. T. (1999).
Seeing movement in the dark. Nature,
398(6727), 475–476.
41.
GeriG. A.GrayR.GrutzmacherR. (2010).
Simulating time-to-contact when both target and observer are in motion. Displays,
31(2), 59–66.
42.
GibsonJ. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world.
Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
43.
GonzálezE. G.AllisonR. S.OnoH.VinnikovM. (2010).
Cue conflict between disparity change and looming in the perception of motion in depth. Vision Research,
50(2), 136–143.
44.
GrayR.ReganT. (1998).
Accuracy of estimating time to collision using binocular and monocular information. Vision Research,
38(4), 499–512.
45.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics.
New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
46.
GroegerJ. A.CavalloV. (1991). Judgements of time-to-collision and time-to-coincidence. In GaleA. G.BrownI. D.HaslegraveC. M.MoorheadI.TaylorS. (Eds.), Vision in vehicles III (pp. 27–34).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
Elsevier.
47.
HancockP. A.ManserM. P. (1997).
Time-to-contact: More than tau alone. Ecological Psychology,
9(4), 265–297.
48.
HancockP. A.ManserM. P. (1998). Time-to-contact. In FeyerA.-M.WilliamsonA. (Eds.), Occupational injury: Risk, prevention, and intervention (pp. 44–59).
London, England:
Taylor & Francis.
49.
HillsB. L. (1980).
Vision, visibility, and perception in driving. Perception,
9(2), 183–216.
50.
HorswillM. S.HelmanS.ArdilesP.WannJ. P. (2005).
Motorcycle accident risk could be inflated by a time to arrival illusion. Optometry and Vision Science,
82(8), 740–746.
51.
KadaliB. R.VedagiriP. (2012).
Pedestrians’ gap acceptance behavior at mid block location. International Journal of Engineering and Technology,
4(2), 158–161.
52.
KaiserM. K.MowafyL. (1993).
Optical specification of time-to-passage: Observers’ sensitivity to global tau. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
19(5), 1028–1040.
53.
KaplanG. A. (1969).
Kinetic disruption of optical texture: The perception of depth at an edge. Perception & Psychophysics,
6(4), 193–198.
54.
KappéB.KortelingJ. E. (1995). Perception of time to contact in driving simulators (Report TNO-TM 1995 A-53).
Soesterberg, the Netherlands:
TNO Human Factors Research Institute.
55.
KhuuS. K.LeeT. C.HayesA. (2010).
Object speed derived from the integration of motion in the image plane and motion-in-depth signaled by stereomotion and looming. Vision Research,
50(9), 904–913.
56.
KirkhamR. W.LandauerA. A. (1985).
Sex differences in the distribution of traffic law enforcement. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
17(3), 211–215.
57.
KonečniV.EbbesonE. B.KonečniD. K. (1976).
Decision processes and risk taking in traffic: Driver response to the onset of yellow light. Journal of Applied Psychology,
61(3), 359–367.
58.
KubovyM. (1988). The psychology of perspective and renaissance art.
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
59.
LappinJ. S. (2014).
What is binocular disparity?Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 870.
60.
LeeD. N. (1976).
A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception,
5(4), 437–459.
61.
Lee, D. N., Young, D. S., & McLaughlin, C. M. (1984). A roadside simulation of road crossing for children. Ergonomics, 27(12), 1271–1281.
62.
LiF. X.LaurentM. (1995).
Occlusion rate of ball texture as a source of velocity information. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
81(3), 871–880.
63.
LobjoisR.CavalloV. (2007).
Age-related differences in street-crossing decisions: The effects of vehicle speed and time constraints on gap selection in an estimation task. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
39(5), 934–943.
64.
LobjoisR.CavalloV. (2009).
The effects of aging on street-crossing behavior: From estimation to actual crossing. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
41(2), 259–267.
65.
López-MolinerJ.BrennerE.SmeetsJ. B. (2007).
Effects of texture and shape on perceived time to passage: Knowing “what” influences judging “when”.Perception & Psychophysics,
69(6), 887–894.
66.
LugtigheidA. J.WelchmanA. E. (2011).
Evaluating methods to measure time-to-contact. Vision Research,
51(20), 2234–2241.
67.
ManserM. P.HancockP. A. (1996).
Influence of approach angle on estimates of time-to-contact. Ecological Psychology,
8(1), 71–99.
68.
MarrD. (2010). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
69.
MathieuJ.BootsmaR. J.BerthelonC.MontagneG. (2017).
Judging arrival times of incoming traffic vehicles is not a prerequisite for safely crossing an intersection: Differential effects of vehicle size and type in passive judgment and active driving tasks. Acta Psychologica,
173, 1–12.
70.
Matthews, M. L. (1986). Aging and the perception of driving risk and ability. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 30(12), 1159–1163.
71.
McGuckinN.FucciA. (2018). Summary of travel trends: 2017 National household travel survey (Report FHWA-PL-18-019).
Washington, DC:
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
72.
McKeeS. P. (1981).
A local mechanism for differential velocity detection. Vision Research,
21(4), 491–500.
73.
McLeodR. W.RossH. E. (1983).
Optic-flow and cognitive factors in time-to-collision estimates. Perception,
12(4), 417–423.
74.
MolyneuxW. (1690). Dipotrica nova. A treatise of dioptricks, in two parts.
London, England:
Benjamin Tooke.
75.
MontgomeryJ.KusanoK. D.GablerH. C. (2014).
Age and gender differences in time to collision at braking from the 100-car naturalistic driving study. Traffic Injury Prevention,
15(Supp. 1), 15–20.
76.
NagataS. (1989). How to reinforce perception of depth in single two-dimensional pictures. In EllisS. R.KaiserM. K.GrunwaldA. J. (Eds.), Spatial displays and spatial instruments (Art. 20, pp. 1–18).
Moffett Field, CA:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
77.
OkoshiT. (1976). Three-dimensional imaging techniques.
New York, NY:
Academic Press.
78.
O'NealE. E.JiangY.FranzenL. J.RahimianP.YonJ. P.KearneyJ. K.PlumertJ. M. (2018).
Changes in perception–action tuning over long time scales: How children and adults perceive and act on dynamic affordances when crossing roads. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
44(1), 18–26.
79.
Oxley, J. A., Ihsen, E., Fildes, B. N., Charlton, J. L., & Day, R. H. (2005). Crossing roads safely: an experimental study of age differences in gap selection by pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(5), 962–971.
80.
PalmisanoS.GillamB.GovanD. G.AllisonR. S.HarrisJ. M. (2010).
Stereoscopic perception of real depths at large distances. Journal of Vision,
10(6), Article 19.
81.
ParsonsonB. S.IslerR. B.HanssonG. J. (1996). Driver behaviour at rural T-intersections (Report No. 56).
Hamilton, New Zealand:
University of Waikato.
82.
PetzoldtT. (2014).
On the relationship between pedestrian gap acceptance and time to arrival estimates. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
72, 127–133.
83.
PlumertJ. M.KearneyJ. K.CremerJ. F. (2004).
Children’s perception of gap affordances: Bicycling across traffic-filled intersections in an immersive virtual environment. Child Development,
75(4), 1243–1253.
84.
PolusA.HochermanI.EfratE. (1988). Evaluation of the accident rates of male and female drivers. Transportation Research Record, 1172, 42–46.
85.
RandK. M.TarampiM. R.Creem-RegehrS. H.ThompsonW. B. (2011).
The importance of a visual horizon for distance judgments under severely degraded vision. Perception,
40(2), 143–154.
86.
RecarteM. A.ConchilloA.NunesL. M. (2005).
Estimation of arrival time in vehicle and video. Psicothema,
17(1), 112–117.
87.
ReganD.HamstraS. J. (1993).
Dissociation of discrimination thresholds for time to contact and for rate of angular expansion. Vision Research,
33(4), 447–462.
88.
ReganD.VincentA. (1995).
Visual processing of looming and time to contact throughout the visual field. Vision Research,
35(13), 1845–1857.
89.
RennerR. S.VelichkovskyB. M.HelmertJ. R. (2013).
The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments: A review. ACM Computing Surveys,
46(2), Article 23.
90.
Satava, R. M., & Jones, S. (2003) Medical applications in virtual reality. In L. J. Hettinger, & M. W. Haas (Eds.), Virtual and Adaptive Environments: Applications, Implications, and Human Performance Issues (pp. 325–343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
91.
ScarfeP.GlennersterA. (2015).
Using high-fidelity virtual reality to study perception in freely moving observers. Journal of Vision, 15(9), Article 3.
92.
SchiffW. (1980). Perception: An applied approach.
Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
93.
SchiffW.DetwilerM. L. (1979).
Information used in judging impending collision. Perception,
8(6), 647–658.
94.
SchiffW.OldakR. (1990).
Accuracy of judging time to arrival: Effects of modality, trajectory, and gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
16(2), 303–316.
95.
SchiffW.OldakR.ShahV. (1992).
Aging persons’ estimates of vehicular motion. Psychology and Aging,
7(4), 518–525.
96.
SchwebelD. C.GainesJ.SeversonJ. (2008).
Validation of virtual reality as a tool to understand and prevent child pedestrian injury. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
40(4), 1394–1400.
97.
SedgwickH. A. (1983). Environment-centered representation of spatial layout: Available visual information from texture and perspective. In BeckJ.HopeB.RosenfeldA. (Eds.), Human and machine vision (pp. 425–458).
New York, NY:
Academic Press.
98.
SewardA. E.AshmeadD. H.BodenheimerB. (2007).
Using virtual environments to assess time-to-contact judgments from pedestrian viewpoints. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 4(3), Article 18.
99.
SidawayB.FairweatherM.SekiyaH.Mcnitt-GrayJ. (1996).
Time-to-collision estimation in a simulated driving task. Human Factors,
38(1), 101–113.
100.
SnowdenR. J.StimpsonN.RuddleR. A. (1998).
Speed perception fogs up as visibility drops. Nature,
392(6675), 450.
101.
SousaR.BrennerE.SmeetsJ. B. (2011).
Judging an unfamiliar object’s distance from its retinal image size. Journal of Vision, 11(9), Article 10.
102.
SousaR.SmeetsJ. B.BrennerE. (2012).
Does size matter?Perception,
41(12), 1532–1534.
103.
StaplinL. (1995).
Simulator and field measures of driver age differences in left-tum gap judgments. Transportation Research Record,
1485, 49–55.
104.
StevensK. A. (1981).
The information content of texture gradients. Biological Cybernetics,
42(2), 95–105.
105.
StevensS. S. (1946).
On the theory of scales of measurement. Science,
103(2684), 677–680.
106.
StewartD.CudworthC. J.LishmanJ. R. (1993).
Misperception of time-to-collision by drivers in pedestrian accidents. Perception,
22(10), 1227–1244.
107.
StoneL. S.ThompsonP. (1992).
Human speed perception is contrast dependent. Vision Research,
32(8), 1535–1549.
108.
TakeuchiT.De ValoisK. K. (2000).
Velocity discrimination in scotopic vision. Vision Research,
40(15), 2011–2024.
109.
Tharanathan, A., & DeLucia, P. R. (2006). Time-to-Collision Judgments of Constant and Non-Constant Velocities: Implications for Rear-End Collisions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(22), 2463–2467.
110.
ThompsonP. (1982).
Perceived rate of movement depends on contrast. Vision Research,
22(3), 377–380.
111.
ThomsonJ. A. (1983).
Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
9(3), 427–443.
112.
ThomsonJ. A.TolmieA. K.FootH. C.WhelanK. M.SarvaryP.MorrisonS. (2005).
Influence of virtual reality training on the roadside crossing judgments of child pedestrians.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
11(3), 175–186.
113.
ToddJ. T. (1981).
Visual information about moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
7(4), 795–810.
114.
TresilianJ. R. (1991).
Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time to contact. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
17(3), 865–876.
115.
TresilianJ. R. (1995).
Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Perception & Psychophysics,
57(2), 231–245.
116.
van der KampJ.SavelsberghG.SmeetsJ. (1997).
Multiple information sources in interceptive timing. Human Movement Science,
16(6), 787–821.
117.
VincentA.ReganD. (1997).
Judging the time to collision with a simulated textured object: Effect of mismatching rate of expansion of object size and of texture element size. Perception & Psychophysics,
59(1), 32–36.
118.
von HofstenC. (1976).
The role of convergence in visual space perception. Vision Research,
16(2), 193–198.
119.
VoyerD.VoyerS.BrydenM. P. (1995).
Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin,
117(2), 250–270.
120.
WallachH.O'ConnellD. N. (1953).
The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
45(4), 205–217.
121.
WarrenW. H.HannonD. J. (1988).
Direction of self-motion is perceived from optical flow. Nature,
336(6195), 162–163.
122.
WatsonJ. S.BanksM. S.von HofstenC.RoydenC. S. (1992).
Gravity as a monocular cue for perception of absolute distance and/or absolute size. Perception,
21(1), 69–76.
123.
YanJ. J.LorvB.LiH.SunH. J. (2011).
Visual processing of the impending collision of a looming object: Time to collision revisited. Journal of Vision, 11(12), Article 7.
124.
Young, D. S., & Lee, D. N. (1987). Training children in road crossing skills using a roadside simulation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 19(5), 327–341.
