Evaluating methods to measure time-to-contact

Vision Research

Volumn 51, Issue 20, 2011, Pages 2234-2241

  Lugtigheid, Arthur J ^a   Welchman, Andrew E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Covariates; Motion perception; Motion in depth; Psychophysics; Randomisation; Time to contact; Timing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; TASK PERFORMANCE; TIME TO CONTACT; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS;

ADULT; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MOTION PERCEPTION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; SIZE PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; TIME PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80053572464     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: 18785646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.019     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bootsma R.J., van Wieringen P.C.W. Timing an attacking forehand drive in table tennis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1990, 16:21-29.
2. Caljouw S.R., Van der Kamp J., Savelsbergh G.J. Catching optical information for the regulation of timing. Experimental Brain Research 2004, 155:427-438.
3. Cavallo V., Laurent M. Visual information and skill level in time-to-collision estimation. Perception 1988, 17:623-632.
4. Coull J.T., Vidal F., Goulon C., Nazarian B., Craig C.M. Using time-to-contact information to assess potential collision modulates both visual and temporal prediction networks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2008, 2:1-10.
5. DeLucia P.R. Pictorial and motion-based information for depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance 1991, 17:738-748.
6. DeLucia P.R. Does binocular disparity or familiar size information override effects of relative size on judgments of time to contact?. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, Human Experimental Psychology 2005, 58:865-886.
7. Field D., Wann J.P. Perceiving time to collision activates the sensorimotor cortex. Current Biology 2005, 15:453-458.
8. Geri G., Gray R., Grutzmacher R. Simulating time-to-contact when both target and observer are in motion. Displays 2010, 31:59-66.
9. Gray R., Regan D. Accuracy of estimating time to collision using binocular and monocular information. Vision Research 1998, 38:499-512.
10. Gray R., Sieffert R. Different strategies for using motion in depth information in catching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31:1004-1022.
11. Harris J.M., Watamaniuk S.J.N. Speed discrimination of motion-in-depth using binocular cues. Vision Research 1995, 35:885-896.
12. Heuer H. Estimates of time to contact based on changing size and changing target vergence. Perception 1993, 22:549-563.
13. Hoffman D.M., Girshick A.R., Akeley K., Banks M.S. Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision 2008, 8:1-30.
14. Karanka J., Rushton S.K., Freeman T.C.A. Effects of feedback on the timing of interception. Perception 2007, 36:306.
15. Kim N., Grocki M. Multiple sources of information and time-to-contact judgments. Vision Research 2006, 46:1946-1958.
16. Lee D.N. A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception 1976, 5:437-459.
17. Lee D.N., Reddish P.E. Plummeting gannets: A paradigm of ecological optics. Nature 1981, 293:293-294.
18. Lee D.N., Young D.S., Reddish P.E., Lough S., Clayton T.M.H. Visual timing in hitting an accelerating ball. The Quarterly journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, Human Experimental Psychology 1983, 35:333-346.
19. López-Moliner J., Brenner E., Smeets J. Effects of texture and shape on perceived time to passage: Knowing " what" influences judging " when" Perception & Psychophysics 2007, 69:887-894.
20. López-Moliner J., Field D.T., Wann J.P. Interceptive timing: Prior knowledge matters. Journal of Vision 2007, 7:1-8.
21. McKee S.P. A local mechanism for differential velocity detection. Vision Research 1981, 21:491-500.
22. McLeod R.W., Ross H.E. Optic-flow and cognitive factors in time-to-collision estimates. Perception 1983, 12:417-423.
23. Michaels C.F., Zeinstra E.B., Oudejans R.R.D. Information and action in punching a falling ball. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2001, 54:69-93.
24. Peper L., Bootsma R.J., Mestre D.R., Bakker F.C. Catching balls: How to get the hand to the right place at the right time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1994, 20:591-612.
25. Regan D. Binocular information about time to collision and time to passage. Vision Research 2002, 42:2479-2483.
26. Regan D., Hamstra S.J. Dissociation of discrimination thresholds for time to contact and for rate of angular expansion. Vision Research 1993, 33:447-462.
27. Regan D., Vincent A. Visual processing of looming and time to contact throughout the visual field. Vision Research 1995, 35:1845-1857.
28. Rock P.B., Harris M.G. Tau as a potential control variable for visually guided braking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:251-267.
29. Rushton S.K., Wann J.P. Weighted combination of size and disparity: A computational model for timing a ball catch. Nature Neuroscience 1999, 2:186-190.
30. Schiff W., Detwiler M.L. Information used in judging impending collision. Perception 1979, 8:647-665.
31. Todd J.T. Visual information about moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1981, 7:810-975.
32. Tresilian J.R. Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction motion and relative judgment tasks. Perception & Psychophysics 1995, 57:231-245.
33. Wann J.P. Anticipating arrival: Is the tau margin a specious theory?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1996, 22:1031-1048.
34. Welchman A.E., Lam J.M., Bülthoff H.H. Bayesian motion estimation accounts for a surprising bias in 3D vision. Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America 2008, 105:12087-12092.
35. Wichmann F.A., Hill N.J. The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception & Psychophysics 2001, 63:1293-1313.