Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Simple reaction time to visual stimuli depends on several stimulus properties. Recently, converging evidence showed that larger stimulus size evokes faster reactions and that this effect seemingly depends on the stimulus’ perceived size rather than on physical stimulus properties. Size–distance scaling usually is regarded as the main functional mechanism underlying size perception. Yet, the role of stimulus depth (distance to a target) has often been neglected in previous studies. Hence, in the present investigation, stimuli were generated using stereo head mounted displays to manipulate stimulus depth. In Experiment 1, a large or small target was presented within the center of a reference plane, either in the same depth plane or displaced (near, far) while participants had to perform a simple reaction time task. At the same time, the target was modulated such that either retinal size was constant or variable across depth planes. In Experiments 2 and 3 the reference plane was shifted along with the target (blocked or on a trial-by-trial basis), while retinal size modulation was equal to Experiment 1. As expected, participants reacted faster to physically larger targets. Also Experiment 1 revealed faster reaction times for closer targets, while the commonly described connection between perceived size (i.e., size–distance scaling) was not apparent in any experiment. Thus, unlike past findings using a virtual three-dimensional task-setting (as induced by binocular disparity) reaction times are not affected by variations of perceived stimulus size.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry the power of response time distributional analyses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 160–166. CrossRef
Broggin, E., Savazzi, S., & Marzi, C. A. (2012). Similar effects of visual perception and imagery on simple reaction time. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 65, 151–164.
Cattell, J. M. (1886). The influence of the intensity of the stimulus on the length of the reaction time. Brain, 8, 512–515. CrossRef
de Gawryszewski, L. G., Riggio, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltá, C. (1987). Movements of attention in the three spatial dimensions and the meaning of “neutral” cues. Neuropsychologia, 25, 19–29. CrossRef
Downing, C. J., & Pinker, S. (1985). The Spatial Structure of Visual Attention. In M. I. Posner & O. S. Marin (Eds.), Mechanisms of Attention: Attention and Performance XI (pp. 171–187). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Finlayson, N. J., & Grove, P. M. (2015). Visual search is influenced by 3D spatial layout. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2322–2330. CrossRef
Gilliland, K., & Haines, R. F. (1975). Binocular summation and peripheral visual response time. American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 52, 834–839. CrossRef
Goldstein, E. (2013). Sensation and perception. Cengage Learning.
Gregory, R. L. (1997). Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 352, 1121–1127. CrossRef
Grubbs, F. E. (1969). Procedures for Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples. Technometrics, 11, 1–21. CrossRef
Knapp, J. M., & Loomis, J. M. (2004). Limited Field of View of Head-Mounted Displays Is Not the Cause of Distance Underestimation in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13, 572–577. CrossRef
Lacouture, Y., & Cousineau, D. (2008). How to use MATLAB to fit the ex-Gaussian and other probability functions to a distribution of response times. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 35–45. CrossRef
Luce, R. D. (1986). Response Times. Oxford University Press.
Matzke, D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). Psychological interpretation of the ex-Gaussian and shifted Wald parameters: a diffusion model analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 798–817. CrossRef
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64. CrossRef
Murgia, A., & Sharkey, P. M. (2009). Estimation of distances in virtual environments using size constancy. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 8, 67–74.
Naceri, A., Chellali, R., Dionnet, F., & Toma, S. (2010). Depth perception within virtual environments: comparison between two display technologies. International Journal On Advances in Intelligent Systems, 3, 51–64.
Ponzo, M. (1928). Urteilstäuschungen über Mengen. Archiv Für Die Gesamte Psychologie, 65, 129–162.
Renner, R. S., Velichkovsky, B. M., & Helmert, J. R. (2013). The Perception of Egocentric Distances in Virtual Environments - A Review. ACM Computing Surveys, 46, 23:1–23:40.
Ross, H. E., & Plug, C. (1998). The history of size constancy and size illusions. In V. Walsh & J. Kulikowski (Eds.), Perceptual Constancy: Why Things Look as they Do (pp. 499–528). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shulman, G. L., Remington, R. W., & McLean, J. P. (1979). Moving attention through visual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 522–526. PubMed
Theeuwes, J., Atchley, P., & Kramer, A. F. (1998). Attentional control within 3-D space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1476–1485. PubMed
Whelan, R. (2010). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psychological Record, 58, 475–482.
- Simple reaction time and size–distance integration in virtual 3D space
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg