Virtual arm's reach influences perceived distances but only after experience reaching

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 70, Issue , 2015, Pages 393-401

  Linkenauger, Sally A ^a   Bülthoff, Heinrich H ^b,c   Mohler, Betty J ^b  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

^c Korea University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Affordances; Distance perception; Motor calibration; Virtual reality; Visual perception

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARM; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; VISION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARM; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84939940650     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: 18733514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.034     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Alexandrova, I.V., Teneva, P.T., de la Rosa, S., Kloos, U., Bülthoff, H.H., & Mohler, B.J. (2010). Egocentric distance judgments in a large screen display immersive virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. ACM, pp. 57-60.
2. Berti A., Frassinetti F. When far becomes near: remapping of space by tool use. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2000, 12(3):415-420.
3. Botvinick M., Cohen J. Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see. Nature 1998, 391(6669):756.
4. Cardinali L., Frassinetti F., Brozzoli C., Urquizar C., Roy A.C., Farnè A. Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19(12):R478-R479.
5. Cowey A., Small M., Ellis S. Left visuo-spatial neglect can be worse in far than in near space. Neuropsychologia 1994, 32(9):1059-1066.
6. Creem-Regehr S.H., Willemsen P., Gooch A.A., Thompson W.B. The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: implications for real and virtual environments. Perception 2005, 34(2):191-204.
7. Cutting J.E., Vishton P.M. Perceiving layout and knowing distances: the integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. Percept. Space Motion 1995, 5:69.
8. Davoli C.C., Brockmole J.R., Witt J.K. Compressing perceived distance with remote tool-use: real, imagined, and remembered. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2012, 38(1):80.
9. Di Luca M. New method to measure end-to-end delay of virtual reality. Presence 2010, 19(6):569-584.
10. Ernst M.O., Banks M.S. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 2002, 415(6870):429-433.
11. Ernst M.O., Bülthoff H.H. Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2004, 8(4):162-169.
12. Gallivan J.P., Cavina-Pratesi C., Culham J.C. Is that within reach? fMRI reveals that the human superior parieto-occipital cortex encodes objects reachable by the hand. J. Neurosci. 2009, 29(14):4381-4391.
13. Gallivan J.P., McLean A., Culham J.C. Neuroimaging reveals enhanced activation in a reach-selective brain area for objects located within participants' typical hand workspaces. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49(13):3710-3721.
14. Halligan P.W., Marshall J.C. Left neglect for near but not far space in man. Nature 1991, 350(6318):498-500.
15. Hay J.C., Pick H.L., Ikeda K. Visual capture produced by prism spectacles. Psychon. Sci. 1965, 2(1-12):215-216.
16. Howard I.P., Rogers B.J. Binocular Vision and Stereopsis 1995, Oxford University Press, New York.
17. Hutchison J.J., Loomis J.M. Does energy expenditure affect the perception of egocentric distance? A failure to replicate Experiment 1 of Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003). Span. J. Psychol. 2006, 9(2):332-339.
18. Inoue K., Kawashima R., Sugiura M., Ogawa A., Schormann T., Zilles K., Fukuda H. Activation in the ipsilateral posterior parietal cortex during tool use: a PET study. Neuroimage 2001, 14(6):1469-1475.
19. Iriki A., Tanaka M., Iwamura Y. Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport 1996, 7(14):2325-2330.
20. Kilteni K., Normand J.M., Sanchez-Vives M.V., Slater M. Extending body space in immersive virtual reality: a very long arm illusion. PloS ONE 2012, 7(7):e40867.
21. Kirsch W., Herbort O., Butz M.V., Kunde W. Influence of motor planning on distance perception within the peripersonal space. PloS ONE 2012, 7(4):e34880.
22. Kunz B.R., Wouters L., Smith D., Thompson W.B., Creem-Regehr S.H. Revisiting the effect of quality of graphics on distance judgments in virtual environments: a comparison of verbal reports and blind walking. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2009, 71(6):1284-1293.
23. Linkenauger S.A., Leyrer M., Bülthoff H.H., Mohler B.J. Welcome to Wonderland: the influence of the size and shape of a virtual hand on the perceived size and shape of virtual objects. PloS ONE 2013, 8(7):e68594.
24. Linkenauger S.A., Witt J.K., Proffitt D.R. Taking a hands-on approach: apparent grasping ability scales the perception of object size. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2011, 37(5):1432.
25. Linkenauger S.A., Witt J.K., Stefanucci J.K., Bakdash J.Z., Proffitt D.R. The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2009, 35(6):1649.
26. Linkenauger S.A., Ramenzoni V., Proffitt D.R. Illusory shrinkage and growth body-based rescaling affects the perception of size. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 21(9):1318-1325.
27. Loftus G.R., Masson M.E. Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon. bull. rev. 1994, 1(4):476-490.
28. Loomis J.M., Knapp J.M. Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. Virtual Adapt. Environ. 2003, 11:21-46.
29. Longo M.R., Lourenco S.F. Space perception and body morphology: extent of near space scales with arm length. Exp. Brain Res. 2007, 177(2):285-290.
30. Lourenco S.F., Longo M.R. The plasticity of near space: evidence for contraction. Cognition 2009, 112(3):451-456.
31. Mark L.S., Balliett J.A., Craver K.D., Douglas S.D., Fox T. What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance for sitting. Ecol. Psychol. 1990, 2(4):325-366.
32. Mark L.S. Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: a study of sitting and stair climbing. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 1987, 13(3):361.
33. Martin T.A., Keating J.G., Goodkin H.P., Bastian A.J., Thach W.T. Throwing while looking through prisms II. Specificity and storage of multiple gaze-throw calibrations. Brain 1996, 119(4):1199-1211.
34. Maselli A., Slater M. The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013, 7.
35. Mohler, B.J., Creem-Regehr, S.H., & Thompson, W.B. (2006). The influence of feedback on egocentric distance judgments in real and virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. ACM, pp. 9-14.
36. Mohler B.J., Creem-Regehr S.H., Thompson W.B., Bülthoff H.H. The effect of viewing a self-avatar on distance judgments in an HMD-based virtual environment. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 2010, 19(3):230-242.
37. Normand J.M., Giannopoulos E., Spanlang B., Slater M. Multisensory stimulation can induce an illusion of larger belly size in immersive virtual reality. PloS ONE 2011, 6(1):e16128.
38. Philbeck J.W., Loomis J.M. Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 1997, 23(1):72.
39. Proffitt D.R., Linkenauger S.A. Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline 2013, 171-198.
40. Ramenzoni V.C., Riley M.A., Shockley K., Davis T. Carrying the height of the world on your ankles: encumbering observers reduces estimates of how high an actor can jump. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2008, 61(10):1487-1495.
41. Sahm, C.S., Creem-Regehr, S.H., Thompson, W.B., & Willemsen, P. (2005). Throwing versus walking as indicators of distance perception in similar real and virtual environments. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 2(1), 35-45.
42. Shaffer D.M., McManama E., Swank C., Durgin F.H. Sugar and space? Not the case: effects of low blood glucose on slant estimation are mediated by beliefs. i-Perception 2013, 4(3):147-155.
43. Slater M., Perez-Marcos D., Ehrsson H.H., Sanchez-Vives M.V. Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2008, 2.
44. Slater M., Spanlang B., Sanchez-Vives M.V., Blanke O. First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PloS ONE 2010, 5(5):e10564.
45. Steptoe W., Steed A., Slater M. Human tails: ownership and control of extended humanoid avatars. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2013, 19(4):583-590.
46. Thompson W.B., Willemsen P., Gooch A.A., Creem-Regehr S.H., Loomis J.M., Beall A.C. Does the quality of the computer graphics matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments?. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 2004, 13(5):560-571.
47. Weiss P.H., Marshall J.C., Zilles K., Fink G.R. Are action and perception in near and far space additive or interactive factors?. Neuroimage 2003, 18(4):837-846.
48. Willemsen P., Colton M.B., Creem-Regehr S.H., Thompson W.B. The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual environments. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 2009, 6(2):8.
49. Williams, B., Rasor, T., & Narasimham, G. (2009). Distance perception in virtual environments: a closer look at the horizon and the error. In: Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. ACM, pp. 7-10.
50. Witt J.K., Proffitt D.R., Epstein W. Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2005, 31(5):880.
51. Witt J.K., Proffitt D.R. Action-specific influences on distance perception: a role for motor simulation. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2008, 34(6):1479.
52. Witt J.K. Tool use influences perceived shape and perceived parallelism, which serve as indirect measures of perceived distance. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2011, 37(4):1148.
53. Woods A.J., Philbeck J.W., Danoff J.V. The various perceptions of distance: an alternative view of how effort affects distance judgments. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 2009, 35(4):1104.