Using Virtual Environments to Assess Time-to-Contact Judgments from Pedestrian Viewpoints

ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 18-

  Seward, A Elizabeth ^a   Bodenheimer, Bobby ^a   Ashmead, Daniel H ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Experimentation; Human Factors; Measurement; time to contact (TTC); Virtual reality (VR)

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349264825     PISSN: 15443558     EISSN: 15443965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1278387.1278392     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Ashmead, D. H., Guth, D., Wall, R. S., Long, R. G., and Ponchillia, P. E. 2005. Street crossing by sighted and blind pedestrians at a modern roundabout. J. Trans. Eng. 131, 812-821.
2. Benguigui, N., Ripoll, H., and Broderick, M. P. 2003. Time-to-contact estimation of accelerated stimuli is based on first-order information. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 29, 1083-1101.
3. Bootsma, R. J. and Craig, C. M. 2002. Global and local contributions to the optical specification of time to contact: Observer sensitivity to composite tau. Perception 31, 901-924.
4. Caird, J. K. and Hancock, P. A. 1994. The perception of arrival time for different oncoming vehicles at an intersection. Ecological Psychology 6, 83-109.
5. Caljouw, S. R., van der Kamp, J., and Savelsbergh, G. J. P. 2004. Catching optical information for the regulation of timing. Exp. Brain. Res. 155, 427-438.
6. Cavallo, V. and Laurent, M. 1988. Visual information and skill level in time-to-collision estimation. Perception 17, 623-632.
7. DeLucia, P. R. and Novak, J. B. 1997. Judgments of relative time-to-contact of more than two approaching objects: Toward a method. Percept. Psychophys. 59, 913-928.
8. Gray, R. and Regan, D. 1999. Do monocular time-to-collision estimates necessarily involve perceived distance? Perception 28, 1257-1264.
9. Guth, D., Ashmead, D., Long, R., Wall, R., and Ponchillia, P. 2005. Blind and sighted pedestrians'judgments of gaps in traffic at roundabouts. Human Factors 47, 314-331.
10. Heuer, H. 1993. Estimates of time to contact based on changing size and changing target vergence. Perception 22, 549-563. Iowa Department of Transportation. 2005. Standard specifications with gs-01008 revisions.
11. Kiefer, R., Flannagan, C., and Jerome, C. 2006. Time-to-collision judgments under realistic driving conditions. Human Factors 48, 334-345.
12. Kim, N. and Grocki, J. 2006. Multiple sources of information and time-to-contact judgments. Vis. Res. 46, 1946-1958.
13. Lee, D. N. 1976. A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception 5, 437-459.
14. Manser, M. P. and Hancock, P. A. 1996. Influence of approach angle on estimates of time-to-contact. Ecological Psychology 8, 71-99.
15. McLeod, R. W. and Ross, H. E. 1983. Optic-flow and cognitive factors in time-to-collision estimates. Perception 12, 417-423. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 2005. Traffic safety facts: 2005 data.
16. Pitt, R., Guyer, B., Hsieh, C. C., and Malek, M. 1990. The severity of pedestrian injuries in children: An analysis of the pedestrian injury causation study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 22, 549-559.
17. Plumert, J. M., Kearney, J. K., and Cremer, J. F. 2004. Children's perception of gap affordances: Bicylcing across traffic-filled intersections in an immersive virtual environment. Child Develop. 75, 1243-1253.
18. Regan, D. and Hamstra, S. J. 1993. Dissociation of discrimination thresholds for time to contact and for rate of angular expansion. Vision Res. 33, 447-462.
19. Schiff, W. and Detwiler, M. L. 1979. Information used in judging impending collision. Perception 8, 647-658.
20. Schiff, W. and Oldak, R. 1990. Accuracy of judging time to arrival: effects of modality, trajectory, and gender. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 16, 303-316.
21. Servos, P. and Goodale, M. A. 1998. Monocular and binocular control of human interceptive movements. Exp. Brain. Res. 119, 92-102.
22. Seward, A. E., Ashmead, D. H., and Bodenheimer, B. 2006. Discrimination and estimation of time-to-contact for approaching traffic using a desktop environment. In APGV2006: Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. 29-32.
23. Sidaway, B., Fairweather, M., Sekiya, H., and McNitt-Gray, J. 1996. Time-to-collision estimation in a simulated driving task. Human Factors 38, 101-113.
24. Smeets, J. B. J., Brenner, E., Trebuchet, S., and Mestre, D. R. 1996. Is judging time-to-contact based on 'tau'? Perception 25, 583-590.
25. Todd, J. T. 1981. Visual information about moving objects. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 7, 795-810.
26. Tresilian, J. R. 1994. Apprximate information sources and perceptual variables in interceptive timing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 1 (Feb.), 154-173.
27. Tresilian, J. R. 1995. Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Perception and Psychophysics 57, 231-245.
28. von Hofsten, C. and Lee, D. N. 1985. Dialogue on perception and action. In Persistence and change, W. H. Warren and R. E. Shaw, Eds. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 231-242.
29. von Hofsten, C., Rosengren, K., Pick, H. L., and Neely, G. 1992. The role of binocular information in ball catching. J. Mot. Behav. 24, 328-338.
30. Wetherill, C. B. and Levitt, H. 1965. Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. British J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 18, 1-10.