Reduced fields of view are neither necessary nor sufficient for distance underestimation but reduce precision and may cause calibration problems

Abstract

Watt et al. (Exp Brain Res, 2000, 135:411–416) suggested that a reduced field of view causes objects to appear closer than their physical distance. This suggestion is based on the observation that individuals terminated open-loop prehension prematurely when pretending to grasp a paper rectangle initially viewed through a reduced field of view. We tested Watt et al.’s suggestion in an open-loop pointing task. In experiment 1, 21 participants pointed at targets in three locations (20, 30 and 40 cm relative to the starting position) in three viewing conditions (full, 16° and 4° field of view). No difference in accuracy was found between conditions but the reduced field of view led to an increase in end-point variability across trials. We interpret these results as indicating that a reduced field of view decreases precision but does not necessarily affect object localisation. In experiment 2, we asked participants to reach-and-grasp a real object under the same three open-loop viewing conditions but without vision following movement onset. The experimental design ensured that haptic feedback was available, which could be used to calibrate reaching movements. We found that the reduced field of view caused no changes in grasp but we observed changes in the transport kinematics consistent with increased variability in the perceptual estimate of target location. Notably there were no changes in the spatial path (expected from movements to a closer location). In experiment 3, we repeated the Watt et al. design but removed vision and forced participants to rely on memory. In this condition we found the same undershoots as described by Watt et al. We conclude that a reduced field of view is neither necessary nor sufficient for underestimation and suggest that a reduced field of view decreases precision. This can cause participants to undershoot and/or alter the movement kinematics but we argue that such findings cannot be ascribed unambiguously to perceptual underestimation as they may reflect strategic alterations in behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Bingham G, Pagano C (1998) The necessity of a perception/action approach to definite distance perception: monocular distance perception to guide reaching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:145–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coello Y, Grealy MA (1997) Effect of size and frame of visual field on the accuracy of an aiming movement. Perception 26:287–300

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dolezal H (1982) Living in a world transformed. Academic, New York

  4. Elliot D, Madalena J (1987) The influence of premovement visual information on manual aiming. Q J Exp Psychol A 39:541–559

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goodale M, Jakobson L, Keillor J (1994) Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia 32:1159–1178

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Landy MS, Maloney LT, Johnston ET, Young M (1995) Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion. Vision Res 35:389–412

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Loftus A, Servos P, Goodale M, Mendarozqueta N, Mon-Williams M (2004) When two eyes are better than one in prehension: monocular viewing and end-point variance. Exp Brain Res DOI 10.1007/s00221-004-1905-2

    Google Scholar 

  8. Magne P, Coello Y (2002) Retinal and extra-retinal contribution to position coding. Behav Brain Res 136:277–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Poulton EC (1981) Human manual control. In: Brooks VB (ed) Handbook of physiology: the nervous system, vol 2. American Physiological Association, Bethesda, pp 1337–1389

  10. Servos P (2000) Distance estimation in the visual and visuomotor systems. Exp Brain Res 130:35–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Servos P, Goodale MA (1994) Binocular vision and the on-line control of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 54:121–132

    Google Scholar 

  12. Servos P, Goodale MA, Jakobson LS (1992) The role of binocular vision in prehension: a kinematic analysis. Vision Res 32:1513–1521

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sivak B, MacKenzie C (1990) Integration of visual information and motor output in reaching and grasping: the contributions of peripheral and central vision. Neuropsychologia 28:1095–1116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tresilian J, Mon-Williams M, Kelly B (1999) Increasing confidence in vergence as a cue to distance. Proc R Soc Ser B 266:39–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Watt S, Bradshaw M, Rushton S (2000) Field of view affects reaching, not grasping. Exp Brain Res 135:411–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thanks the Wellcome Trust for their generous support of S.M. and I.M. through a vacation studentship.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Mon-Williams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loftus, A., Murphy, S., McKenna, I. et al. Reduced fields of view are neither necessary nor sufficient for distance underestimation but reduce precision and may cause calibration problems. Exp Brain Res 158, 328–335 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-1900-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Prehension
  • Field of view
  • Distance
  • Calibration
  • Feedback
  • Perception
  • Variability