Perceptual and cognitive factors governing performance in comparative arrival-time judgments.

Law, David J.; Pellegrino, James W.; Mitchell, Steven; Fischer, Susan C.; McDonald, Thomas P.; Hunt, Earl

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.19.6.1183

Cited by 73 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Oberfeld & Hecht, 2008;Petzoldt, 2014), and can be attributed to either a size-arrival effect (DeLucia, 1991) or a distance bias (Law et al, 1993), because the slower speed condition had a larger final optical vehicle size and a closer final distance than did the faster condition. A significant interaction between TTC level and speed, F(2, 80) = 27.397,ε = 1.000, p < .001, η p 2 = .407, indicated larger differences in TTC estimates between the two speeds with increasing actual TTC (see Fig.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…We also observed a significant effect of vehicle speed on TTC estimates, indicating that estimates were shorter when vehicle speed was slower. This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Oberfeld & Hecht, 2008;Petzoldt, 2014) and can be attributed to a size-arrival effect (DeLucia, 1991) or to a distance bias (Law et al, 1993). Specifically, at slower speeds, when the screen goes blank, the final optical vehicle size is larger, and the vehicle is closer in terms of final distance, than in the faster condition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…This finding is compatible with data from DeLucia et al (2016), obtained in both an audio-visual and a visual-only condition, whereas Gray and Regan (1998) reported that the final optical size, final rate of optical expansion and the change in visual angle across the presentation duration showed no relation to TTC estimates in a visual-only condition. As expected, the TTC estimates increased with the actual visual TTC, with the final visual distance (Law et al, 1993), and with the inverse of the final optical size (DeLucia, 1991).…”

Section: Visual-only Conditionmentioning

confidence: 50%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Estimating the relative weights of visual and auditory tau versus heuristic-based cues for time-to-contact judgments in realistic, familiar scenes by older and younger adults

Keshavarz

Campos

DeLucia

et al. 2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimating time to contact (TTC) involves multiple sensory systems, including vision and audition. Previous findings suggested that the ratio of an object's instantaneous optical size/sound intensity to its instantaneous rate of change in optical size/sound intensity (τ) drives TTC judgments. Other evidence has shown that heuristic-based cues are used, including final optical size or final sound pressure level. Most previous studies have used decontextualized and unfamiliar stimuli (e.g., geometric shapes on a blank background). Here we evaluated TTC estimates by using a traffic scene with an approaching vehicle to evaluate the weights of visual and auditory TTC cues under more realistic conditions. Younger (18-39 years) and older (65+ years) participants made TTC estimates in three sensory conditions: visual-only, auditory-only, and audio-visual. Stimuli were presented within an immersive virtual-reality environment, and cue weights were calculated for both visual cues (e.g., visual τ, final optical size) and auditory cues (e.g., auditory τ, final sound pressure level). The results demonstrated the use of visual τ as well as heuristic cues in the visual-only condition. TTC estimates in the auditory-only condition, however, were primarily based on an auditory heuristic cue (final sound pressure level), rather than on auditory τ. In the audio-visual condition, the visual cues dominated overall, with the highest weight being assigned to visual τ by younger adults, and a more equal weighting of visual τ and heuristic cues in older adults. Overall, better characterizing the effects of combined sensory inputs, stimulus characteristics, and age on the cues used to estimate TTC will provide important insights into how these factors may affect everyday behavior.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Visual-only Conditionmentioning

confidence: 50%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimating the relative weights of visual and auditory tau versus heuristic-based cues for time-to-contact judgments in realistic, familiar scenes by older and younger adults

Keshavarz

Campos

DeLucia

et al. 2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, in the AI task, this type of cognitive influences is minimized (cf. DeLucia & Novak, 1997;Law et al, 1993). Thus, the two types of tasks differ in terms of the processing involved.…”

Section: Experiments 5: Pm Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of a moving distractor object on time-to-contact judgments.

Oberfeld

Hecht

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of moving task-irrelevant objects on time-to-contact (TTC) judgments were examined in 5 experiments. Observers viewed a directly approaching target in the presence of a distractor object moving in parallel with the target. In Experiments 1 to 4, observers decided whether the target would have collided with them earlier or later than a standard (absolute identification task). A contrast effect was observed: If the distractor arrived later than the target, it caused a bias toward early responses, relative to the condition without a distractor. The early-arriving distractor had no significant effect. The pattern of results was unaltered when potentially confounding information from individual visual cues was removed. The availability of stereoscopic information reduced the effect. The contrast effect was also observed if target and distractor were abstract geometric objects rather than simulations of real-world vehicles, rendering less likely a simple safety strategy activated by a potentially threatening distractor. Experiment 5 showed that the effect of the late-arriving distractor generalized to a prediction-motion task. The results indicate that task-irrelevant information in the background has to be considered in revision of time-to-contact theory.

show abstract

“…However, results also suggest that judgments about TTC are constrained by scene and threshold factors and can be based on multiple sources of information (see, e.g., DeLucia, 1991aDeLucia, , 1991bDeLucia, , 1995DeLucia & Warren, 1994;Law et al, 1993;Schiff & Detwiler, 1979;Schiff & Oldak, 1990;Tresilian, 1995). For example, results of the previously mentioned PM task indicated that observers estimated TTC inaccurately when actual TTC exceeded 2 sec, and that the inaccuracy increased as actual TTC increased; the majority ofjudgments were underestimations (Schiff & Detwiler, 1979;Schiff & Oldak, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgments of relative time-to-contact of more than two approaching objects: Toward a method

DeLucia

Novak

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observers reported which of as many as eight computer-generated approaching objects would "hit" them first. Accuracy was above chance probability except when two-object displays contained pictorial relative size information that contradicted relative time-to-contact (TIC) information. Mean d' and response time was greater, but mean efficiency (Barlow, 1978)was smaller with eight objects than with two. Performance was less effective when global expansion contradicted TIC information than when local expansion contradicted TIC. Results suggest that observers can judge relative TIC with as many as eight objects when certain sources of information are consistent with TIC and that observers rely on information other than, or in conjunction with, optical TIC. Also, the sources of visual information that affect performance may vary with set size, and identification (but not detection) judgments may be constrained by limited-capacity processing.Information in the optic array specifies when an object will hit or pass the observation point and when it will hit another designated object (Bootsma & Oudejans, 1993;Lee, 1974; Tresilian, 1990 Tresilian, , 1991. Results suggest that observers can use or are sensitive to such optical information about time-to-contact (TTC; e.g., tau, Lee, 1974)1 in various tasks (see, e.g., Bootsma & Oudejans, 1993;Kaiser & Mowafy, 1993;Schiff& Detwiler, 1979;Schiff& Oldak, 1990;Todd, 1981).For example, Schiff and colleagues (Schiff & Detwiler, 1979;Schiff & Oldak, 1990) measured judgments about TTC with a prediction-motion (PM) task in which a filmed or animated object approached the observation point and then disappeared from view. The observers pressed a button when they thought the object would have reached them had the object continued approaching at the same speed after it disappeared. Estimates ofTTC increased as actual TTC increased, suggesting that judgments were based on optical TTC. Moreover, in another study, when observers judged which of two computersimulated approaching objects would contact the observation point first, they achieved over 90% accuracy when there was only a 150-msec difference in TTC between the objects (Todd, 1981; see also Simpson, 1988).Parts of this study were reported at the 1994 annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. We thank James R. Tresilian for suggesting the analyses of efficiency and local and global expansion. We are grateful to Norma V. S. Graham for valuable discussions and suggestions regarding data analyses and signal detection analyses. We also thank Robert W. Bell, Lanie A. Dornier, Mary K. Kaiser, David 1. Law, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier drafts, and Jeff Maresh and Robert Todd of Engineering Solutions, Inc., for technical assistance. This research was supported by the Research Enhancement Fund at Texas Tech University. Correspondence should be addressed to P.R. Del.ucia, Texas Tech University, Department of Psychology, Lubbock, TX 79409-2051 (e-mail: djxpd@ttacs.ttu.edu).However...

show abstract

Perceptual and cognitive factors governing performance in comparative arrival-time judgments.

Cited by 73 publications

References 39 publications

Estimating the relative weights of visual and auditory tau versus heuristic-based cues for time-to-contact judgments in realistic, familiar scenes by older and younger adults

Estimating the relative weights of visual and auditory tau versus heuristic-based cues for time-to-contact judgments in realistic, familiar scenes by older and younger adults

Effects of a moving distractor object on time-to-contact judgments.

Judgments of relative time-to-contact of more than two approaching objects: Toward a method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About