Abstract
The theory of direct perception holds that competent observers are able to detect optical patterns that specify the relative mass of colliding balls. Heuristic theorists, on the other hand, claim that judgments of relative mass are based on variables that do not specify relative mass. We contrasted these views with an experiment in which participants were given feedback on their ratio-scaled estimates of the relative mass of simulated colliding balls. Correlations between judged relative mass and various kinetic and kinematic measures of the collisions revealed that (1) judgments of relative mass become more accurate with feedback, (2) different observers use different variables, (3) during training, many observers change which variables they use, (4) before training, observers tend to use nonspecifying variables or combinations thereof, (5) after a minimal amount of training, at least some observers seem to detect mass-specifying information, and (6) the judgments do not support a generalization of the heuristic model of Gilden and Proffitt (1989,1994). These findings suggest that direct perception of relative mass is a skill that can be developed through appropriate training.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bernstein, N. (1967).The coordination and regulation of movement. New York: Pergamon.
Brüning, J. L., &Kintz, B. L. (1987).Computational handbook of statistics. Glencoe, IL: Scott Foresman.
Gilden, D. L., &Proffitt, D. R. (1989). Understanding collision dynamics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 372–383.
Gilden, D. L., &Proffitt, D. R. (1994). Heuristic judgment of mass ratio in two-body collisions.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 708–720.
Hecht, H. (1996). Heuristics and invariants in dynamic event perception: Immunized concepts or nonstatements?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3,61–70.
Jacobs, D. M., Runeson, S., & Michaels, C. F. (2000).Learning to visually perceive the relative mass of colliding balls in locally and globally constrained task ecologies. Manuscript received for publication.
Michaels, C. F., &Beek, P. J. (1995). The state of ecological psychology.Ecological Psychology,7, 259–278.
Michaels, C. F., &De Vries, M. M. (1998). Higher-order and lower-order variables in the visual perception of relative pulling force.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 526–546.
Michotte, A. (1963).The perception of causality. London: Methuen.
Proffitt, D. R., &Gilden, D. L. (1989). Understanding natural dynamics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 384–393.
Runeson, S. (1975). Visual prediction of collision with natural and nonnatural motion functions.Perception & Psychophysics,18, 261–266.
Runeson, S. (1977). On the possibility of “smart” perceptual mechanisms.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,18, 172–179.
Runeson, S. (1983).On visual perception of dynamic events (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Psychologica Upsaliensia, Serial No. 9). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. (Original work published 1977)
Runeson, S. (1995). Support for the cue-heuristic model is based on suboptimal observer performance: Response to Gilden & Proffitt (1994).Perception & Psychophysics,57, 1262–1273.
Runeson, S., &Frykholm, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person and action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,112, 617–632.
Runeson, S., Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (in press). Visual perception of dynamic properties: Cue-heuristic versus direct-perceptual competence.Psychological Review.
Runeson, S., &Vedeler, D. (1993). The indispensability of precollision kinematics in the visual perception of relative mass.Perception & Psychophysics,53, 617–632.
Todd, J. T., &Warren, W. H. (1982). Visual perception of relative mass in dynamic events.Perception,11, 325–335.
Turvey, M. T. (1990). Coordination.American Psvchologist,45, 938–953.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged for funding this project. This research was conducted while D.M.J, was supported by a grant from the Foundation for Behavioural and Educational Sciences of this organization (575-12-070), awarded to C.F.M. S.R.’s participation and his laboratory resources were supported by the Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSFR).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jacobs, D.M., Michaels, C.F. & Runeson, S. Learning to perceive the relative mass of colliding balls: The effects of ratio scaling and feedback. Perception & Psychophysics 62, 1332–1340 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212135
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212135