Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 171, Issue 1, pp 35–46 | Cite as

Collision judgment of objects approaching the head

  • E. Poljac
  • B. Neggers
  • A.V. van den Berg
Research Article


Recent investigations have indicated that human perception of the trajectory of objects approaching in the horizontal plane is precise but biased away from straight ahead. This is remarkable because it could mean that subjects perceive objects that approach on a collision course as missing the head. Approach within the horizontal plane through the eyes and the fixation point (the plane of regard) is special, as general motions will also have a component of motion perpendicular to the plane of regard. Thus, we investigated three-dimensional motion perception in the vicinity of the head, including vertical components. Subjects judged whether an object that moved in the mid-sagittal plane was going to hit below or above a well-known reference point on the face like the center of the chin or the forehead (perceptual task). Tactile and proprioceptive information about the reference point significantly improved precision. Precision did not change with distance of the approaching target or with fixation direction. Bias was virtually absent for these vertical motions. When subjects pointed with their index finger to the perceived location of impact on their face (visuo-motor task), they overestimated (1.7 cm) the horizontal eccentricity of the point of impact (pointing task). Vertical bias, however, was again virtually absent. Interestingly, when trajectories intersected the plane of regard, higher precision was observed in the perceptual task regardless of the other conditions. In contrast, neither bias nor precision of the pointing task changed significantly when the trajectories intersected the plane of regard. When asked to point to the location where a trajectory intersected the plane of regard, subjects overestimated the depth component of this intersection location by about 3 cm. The absence of perceptual and pointing bias in the vertical direction in contrast to the clear horizontal bias suggests that different (combinations of) cues are used to judge these components of the trajectory of an approaching object. The results of our perceptual task suggest a role for somatosensory signals in the visual judgment of impending impact.


Reference Position Proprioceptive Information Tactile Information Visual Judgment Vertical Bias 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andersen RA, Buneo CA (2002) Intentional maps in posterior parietal cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 25:189–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashida H (2004) Action-specific extrapolation of target motion in human visual system. Neuropsychologia 42:1515–1524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berti A, Frassinetti F (2000) When far becomes near: remapping of space by tool use. J Cogn Neurosci 12(3):415–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beverley KI, Regan D (1975) The relation between discrimination and sensitivity in the perception of motion in depth. J Physiol 249(2):387–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner E, Cornelissen FW (2000) Separate simultaneous processing of egocentric and relative positions. Vision Res 40:2557–2563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenner E, van den Berg AV, van Damme WJ (1996) Perceived motion in depth. Vision Res 36(5):699–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridgeman B, Gemmer A, Forsman T, Huemer V (2000) Processing spatial information in the sensorimotor branch of the visual system. Vision Res 40:3539–3552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colby CL, Duhamel JR, Goldberg ME (1991) Heterogeneity of extrastriate visual areas and multiple parietal areas in the macaque monkey. Neuropsychologia 29:517–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooke DF, Taylor CSR, Moore T, Graziano MSA (2003) Complex movements evoked by microstimulation of the ventral intraparietal area. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(10):6163–6168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cumming BG, DeAngelis GC (2001) The physiology of stereopsis. Annu Rev Neurosci 24:203–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cumming BG, Parker AJ (1994) Binocular mechanisms for detecting motion-in-depth. Vision Res 34(4):483–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cynader M, Regan (1978) Neurons in catparastriate cortex sensitive to the direction of motion in three-dimensional space. J Physiol 274:549–569PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ernst MO, Bülthoff HH (2004) Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci 8(4):162–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foley JM (1980) Binocular distance perception. Psychol Rev 87:411–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gentilucci M, Roy AC, Stefanini S (2004) Grasping an object naturally or with a tool: are these tasks guided by a common motor representation? Exp Brain Res 157:496–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gross CG, Graziano MSA (1995) Multiple representations in space in the brain. Neuroscientist 1:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris JM, Dean PJA (2003) Accuracy and precision of binocular 3-D motion perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29(5):869–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y (1996) Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurons. Neuroreport 7(14):2325–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitigawa N, Ichihara S (2002) Hearing visual motion in depth. Nature 416:172–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maravita A, Iriki A (2004) Tools for the body schema. Trends Cogn Sciences 8(2):79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marshak W, Sekuler R (1979) Mutual repulsion between moving visual targets. Science 205(4413):1399–1401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayhew JEW, Longuet-Higgins HC (1982) A computational model of binocular depth perception. Nature 297:376–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Medendorp WP, van Asselt S, Gielen CCAM (1999) Pointing to remembered targets after active one-step self-displacements within reaching space. Exp Brain Res 125:50–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neggers SFW, Langerak TR, Schutter DJLG, Mandl RCW, Ramsey NF, Lemmens PJJ, Postma A (2004) A stereotactic method for image-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation validated with fMRI and motor-evoked potentials. NeuroImage 21:1805–1817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nguyen BT, Tran TD, Hoshiyama M, Inui K, Kakigi R (2004) Face representation in the human primary somatosensory cortex. Neurosci Res 50:227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peper L, Bootsma RJ, Mestre DR, Bakker FC (1994) Catching balls: how to get the hand to the right place at the right time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20(3):591–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poljac E, van den Berg AV (2003) Representation of heading direction in far and near-head space. Exp Brain Res 151:501–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poljac E, van den Berg AV (2005) Localization of the plane of regard in space. Exp Brain Res 163:457–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poljac E, Lankheet M, van den Berg AV (2004) Perceptual compensation for eye torsion. Vision Res 45:485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Portfors-Yeomans CV, Regan D (1996) Cyclopean discrimination thresholds for the direction and speed of motion in depth. Vision Res 36(20):3265–3279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Regan D, Gray R (2000) Visually guided collision avoidance and collision achievement. Trends Cogn Sci 4(3):99–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Regan D, Hamstra SJ (1993) Dissociation of discrimination thresholds for time to contact and for rate of angular expansion. Vision Res 33(4):447–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Regan D, Kaushal S (1994) Monocular discrimination of the direction of motion in depth. Vision Res 34(2):163–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Regan D, Vincent A (1995) Visual processing of looming and time to contact throughout the visual field. Vision Res 35:1845–1857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rine R, Skavenski AA (1997) Extraretinal eye position signals determine perceived target location when they conflict with visual cues. Vision Res 37(6):775–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Royden CS, Conti DM (2003) A model using MT-like motion-opponent operators explains an illusory transformation in the optic flow field. Vision Res 43(26):2811–2826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Todd JT (1981) Visual information about moving objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 7(4):795–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van den Berg AV (1996) Judgments of heading. Vision Res 36(15):2337–2350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van de Grind WA, van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ, (1983) Detection of coherent movement in peripherally viewed random-dot patterns. J Opt Soc Am 73:1674–1683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wallace MT, Roberson GE, Hairston WD, Stein BE, Vaughan JW, Schirillo JA (2004) Unifying multisensory signals across time and space. Exp Brain Res 158(2):252–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welchman AE, Tuck VL, Harris JM (2004) Human observers are biased in judging the angular approach of a projectile. Vision Res 44:2027–2042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Functional NeurobiologyHelmholtz InstituteUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations