Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Determining when an approaching object will reach our position in space is a skill necessary to survive in most environments and a skill which has been termed time-to-contact. Time-to-contact issues have traditionally been examined through the use of an artificial removal research scenario or through an ecologically valid occlusion research scenario. Although results suggest time-to-contact estimates were more accurate when viewing an occlusion research scenario, little evidence indicates whether the markedly better performance was due to relative increases in ecological validity or to the process of object occlusion. The present investigation compared an ecologically valid occlusion research scenario, an ecologically invalid occlusion research scenario, and an ecologically invalid removal research scenario. Results suggest little influence for varying levels of ecological validity. The theoretical and practical ramifications of the present research are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Caird

J. K.

Hancock

P. A.

(1994). The perception of arrival time for different oncoming vehicles at an intersection. Ecological Psychology, 6, 83–109.

Carel

W. L.

(1961). Visual factors in the contact analog. Publication No. R61ELC60.34, Ithaca, NY: General Electric Company Advanced Electronics Center.

Hancock

P. A.

Manser

M. P.

(1998). Time-to-contact. In Feyer

A. M.

Williamson

A. M.

(Eds.), Occupational injury: Risk, prevention, and intervention. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.

Hancock

P. A.

Manser

M. P.

(1997). Time-to-contact: More than tau alone. Ecological Psychology, 9(4), 265–297.

Herstein

R. J.

Walker

M. L.

(1993). Perception of vehicle speed as a function of vehicle size. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(6), 566–568.

Heuer

(1993). Estimates of TTC based on changing size and changing target vergence. Perception, 22, 549–563.

Kantowitz

B. H.

(1992). Selecting measures for human factors research. Human Factors, 34(4), 387–398.

Knowles

W. B.

Carel

W. L.

(1958). Estimating time-to-collision. American Psychologist, 13, 405–406.

Manser

M. P.

Hancock

P. A.

(1996). The influence of approach angle on estimates of time-to-contact. Ecological Psychology, 8(1), 71–99.

10.

McLeod

R. W.

Ross

H. E.

(1983). Optic flow and cognitive factors in time-to-collision estimates. Perception, 12, 417–423.

11.

Schiff

Arnone

(1995). Perceiving and driving: Where parallel roads meet. In Hancock

P. A.

Flach

Caird

Vicente

(Eds.), Local applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems (Vol. 2) (pp. 1–35). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

12.

Schiff

Detwiler

(1979). Information used in judging impending collisions. Perception, 8, 647–658.

13.

Schiff

Oldak

Shah

(1992). Aging persons' estimates of vehicular motion. Psychology and Aging, 7(4), 518–525.

14.

Tresilian

J. R.

(1994a). Approximate information sources and perceptual variables in interceptive timing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(1), 154–173.

15.

Wann

J. P.

(1996). Anticipating arrival: Is the tau margin a specious theory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(4), 1031–1048.

The Role of Ecological Validity in the Ability to Estimate Time-to-Contact

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References