Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Temporal estimation with two moving objects: overt and covert pursuit

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study examined temporal estimation in a prediction motion task where participants were cued to overtly pursue one of two moving objects, which could either arrive first, i.e., shortest [time to contact (TTC)] or second (i.e., longest TTC) after a period of occlusion. Participants were instructed to estimate TTC of the first-arriving object only, thus making it necessary to overtly pursue the cued object while at the same time covertly pursuing the other (non-cued) object. A control (baseline) condition was also included in which participants had to estimate TTC of a single, overtly pursued object. Results showed that participants were able to estimate the arrival order of the two objects with very high accuracy irrespective of whether they had overtly or covertly pursued the first-arriving object. However, compared to the single-object baseline, participants’ temporal estimation of the covert object was impaired when it arrived 500 ms before the overtly pursued object. In terms of eye movements, participants exhibited significantly more switches in gaze location during occlusion from the cued to the non-cued object but only when the latter arrived first. Still, comparison of trials with and without a switch in gaze location when the non-cued object arrived first indicated no advantage for temporal estimation. Taken together, our results indicate that overt pursuit is sufficient but not necessary for accurate temporal estimation. Covert pursuit can enable representation of a moving object’s trajectory and thereby accurate temporal estimation providing the object moves close to the overt attentional focus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While such a percentage of rejected trials might seem quite high, it is important to remember that additional objects in the visual scene often attract visual attention (e.g., Marinovic and Wallis 2011, Gould et al. 2013), even if the additional object is explicitly known to be task-irrelevant (e.g., Oberfeld and Hecht 2008, Baurès et al. 2011). In the current experiment, the second object was in fact task-relevant (e.g., would it arrive before or after the other object?), we preferred to proceed with a high rejection rate and thus minimize a potential source of bias in our results.

  2. Given the very low number of switches in gaze location exhibited by all participants in the conditions ΔTTC = 250 and 500 ms, it was not reasonable, and in some cases possible, to compute median data.

References

  • Baurès R, Oberfeld D, Hecht H (2010) Judging the contact-times of multiple objects: evidence for asymmetric interference. Acta Psychol 134:363–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baurès R, Oberfeld D, Hecht H (2011) Temporal-range estimation of multiple objects: evidence for an early bottleneck. Acta Psychol 137:76–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baurès R, Oberfeld D, Tournier I, Hecht H, Cavallo V (2014) Arrival-time judgments on multi-lane streets: the failure to ignore irrelevant traffic. Accid Anal Prev 65:72–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benguigui N, Bennett SJ (2010) Ocular pursuit and the estimation of time-to-contact with accelerating objects in prediction motion are controlled independently based on first-order estimates. Exp Brain Res 202:327–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett SJ, Baurès R, Hecht H, Benguigui N (2010) Eye movements influence estimation of time-to-contact in prediction motion. Exp Brain Res 206:399–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh P, Alvarez G (2005) Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends Cogn Sci 9:349–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeLucia PR, Kaiser M, Bush J, Meyer L, Sweet B (2003) Information integration in judgements of time to contact. Q J Exp Psychol: Hum Exp Psychol 56(A):1165–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst MD (2004) Permutation Methods: a Basis for Exact Inference. Stats Sci 19:676–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehd HM, Seiffert AE (2008) Eye movements during multiple object tracking: where do participants look? Cogn 108:201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehd HM, Seiffert AE (2010) Looking at the center of targets helps multiple object tracking. J Vis 10(4)19:1–13

  • Gould M, Poulter DR, Helman S, Wann JP (2013) Detection of vehicle approach in the presence of additional motion and simulated observer motion at road junctions. J Exp Psychol: Appl 19:171–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecht H, Savelsbergh GJP (2004) Time-to-contact. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg Y (1988) A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biom 75(4):800–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Huynh H, Feldt LS (1976) Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomised block and split-plot designs. J Educ Stat 1:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keselman HJ (1994) Stepwise and simultaneous multiple comparison procedures of repeated-measures means. J Educ Stat 19(2):127–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan AZ, Lefèvre P, Heinen SJ, Blohm G (2010) The default allocation of attention is broadly ahead of smooth pursuit. J Vis 10:1–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lin JY, Franconeri S, Enns JT (2008) Objects on a collision path with the observer demand attention. Psychol Sci 19:686–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy LP, Fowler GA, Krauzlis RJ (2009) Spatial allocation of attention during smooth pursuit eye movements. Vis Res 49:1275–1285

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lugtigheid AJ, Welchman AE (2011) Evaluating methods to measure time-to-contact. Vis Res 51:2234–2241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Makin ADJ, Poliakoff E (2011) Do common systems control eye movements and motion extrapolation? Q J Exp Psychol 64:1327–1343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manser MP, Hancock PA (1996) Influence of approach angle on estimates of time-to-contact. Ecol Psy 8:71–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marinovic W, Wallis G (2011) Visual attention affects temporal estimation in anticipatory motor actions. Exp Brain Res 212:613–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oberfeld D, Hecht H (2008) Effects of a moving distractor object on time-to-contact judgments. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perf 34:605–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlendorf S, Kimmig H, Glauche V, Haller S (2007) Gaze pursuit, ‘attention pursuit’ and their effects on cortical activations. Eur J Neurosci 26:2096–2108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler H (1994) Dual-Task Interference in Simple Tasks - Data and Theory. Psychol Bull 116:220–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterken C, Brown B, Bowman K (1991) Predicting future position of a moving target. Percept 20:5–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poliakoff E, Collins CJS, Barnes GR (2004) Target selection for predictive smooth pursuit eye movements. Exp Brain Res 155:129–133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poliakoff E, Collins CJS, Barnes GR (2005) Attention and selection for predictive smooth pursuit eye movements. Cogn Brain Res 25:688–700

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn ZW, Storm RW (1988) Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spat Vis 3:179–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn Z, Burkell J, Fisher B, Sears C, Schmidt W, Trick L (1994) Multiple parallel access in visual attention. Can J Exp Psychol 48:260–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum DA (1975) Perception and extrapolation of velocity and acceleration. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1:395–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schiff W, Detwiler ML (1979) Information used in judging impending collision. Percept 8(6):647–658

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sears CR, Pylyshyn ZW (2000) Multiple object tracking and attentional processing. Can J Exp Psychol 54:1–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Terry HR, Charlton SG, Perrone JA (2008) The role of looming and attention capture in drivers’ braking responses. Accid Anal Prev 40:1375–1382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tombu M, Seiffert AE (2008) Attentional costs in multiple-object tracking. Cognition 108:1–25

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tresilian JR (1991) Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time-to-contact. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17:865–876

  • van Donkelaar P, Drew AS (2002) The allocation of attention during smooth pursuit eye movements. Prog Brain Res 140:267–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winer BJ, Brown DR, Michels KM (1991) Statistical principles in experimental design, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PRISSMH, F2SMH, Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse 3, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse, France

    Robin Baurès

  2. Research Institute for Exercise and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

    Simon J. Bennett & Joe Causer

Authors
  1. Robin Baurès
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon J. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joe Causer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robin Baurès.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baurès, R., Bennett, S.J. & Causer, J. Temporal estimation with two moving objects: overt and covert pursuit. Exp Brain Res 233, 253–261 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4110-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4110-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation