Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

The underestimation of egocentric distance: evidence from frontal matching tasks.
Atten Percept Psychophys 2011; 73(7):2205-17AP

Abstract

There is controversy over the existence, nature, and cause of error in egocentric distance judgments. One proposal is that the systematic biases often found in explicit judgments of egocentric distance along the ground may be related to recently observed biases in the perceived declination of gaze (Durgin & Li, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, in press), To measure perceived egocentric distance nonverbally, observers in a field were asked to position themselves so that their distance from one of two experimenters was equal to the frontal distance between the experimenters. Observers placed themselves too far away, consistent with egocentric distance underestimation. A similar experiment was conducted with vertical frontal extents. Both experiments were replicated in panoramic virtual reality. Perceived egocentric distance was quantitatively consistent with angular bias in perceived gaze declination (1.5 gain). Finally, an exocentric distance-matching task was contrasted with a variant of the egocentric matching task. The egocentric matching data approximate a constant compression of perceived egocentric distance with a power function exponent of nearly 1; exocentric matches had an exponent of about 0.67. The divergent pattern between egocentric and exocentric matches suggests that they depend on different visual cues.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Swarthmore College, Department of Psychology, 500 College Ave, Swarthmore, PA 19081, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Language

eng

PubMed ID

21735313

Citation

Li, Zhi, et al. "The Underestimation of Egocentric Distance: Evidence From Frontal Matching Tasks." Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, vol. 73, no. 7, 2011, pp. 2205-17.
Li Z, Phillips J, Durgin FH. The underestimation of egocentric distance: evidence from frontal matching tasks. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011;73(7):2205-17.
Li, Z., Phillips, J., & Durgin, F. H. (2011). The underestimation of egocentric distance: evidence from frontal matching tasks. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73(7), pp. 2205-17. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0170-2.
Li Z, Phillips J, Durgin FH. The Underestimation of Egocentric Distance: Evidence From Frontal Matching Tasks. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011;73(7):2205-17. PubMed PMID: 21735313.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - The underestimation of egocentric distance: evidence from frontal matching tasks. AU - Li,Zhi, AU - Phillips,John, AU - Durgin,Frank H, PY - 2011/7/8/entrez PY - 2011/7/8/pubmed PY - 2012/3/30/medline SP - 2205 EP - 17 JF - Attention, perception & psychophysics JO - Atten Percept Psychophys VL - 73 IS - 7 N2 - There is controversy over the existence, nature, and cause of error in egocentric distance judgments. One proposal is that the systematic biases often found in explicit judgments of egocentric distance along the ground may be related to recently observed biases in the perceived declination of gaze (Durgin & Li, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, in press), To measure perceived egocentric distance nonverbally, observers in a field were asked to position themselves so that their distance from one of two experimenters was equal to the frontal distance between the experimenters. Observers placed themselves too far away, consistent with egocentric distance underestimation. A similar experiment was conducted with vertical frontal extents. Both experiments were replicated in panoramic virtual reality. Perceived egocentric distance was quantitatively consistent with angular bias in perceived gaze declination (1.5 gain). Finally, an exocentric distance-matching task was contrasted with a variant of the egocentric matching task. The egocentric matching data approximate a constant compression of perceived egocentric distance with a power function exponent of nearly 1; exocentric matches had an exponent of about 0.67. The divergent pattern between egocentric and exocentric matches suggests that they depend on different visual cues. SN - 1943-393X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/21735313/The_underestimation_of_egocentric_distance:_evidence_from_frontal_matching_tasks_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0170-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -