Advertisement

Affordance Perception and the Visual Control of Locomotion

  • Brett R. Fajen
Chapter

Abstract

When people navigate through complex, dynamic environments, they select actions and guide locomotion in ways that take into account not only the environment but also their body dimensions and locomotor capabilities. For example, when stepping off a curb, a pedestrian may need to decide whether to go now ahead of an approaching vehicle or wait until it passes. Similarly, a child playing a game of tag may need to decide whether to go to the left or right around a stationary obstacle to intercept another player. In such situations, the possible actions (i.e., affordances) are partly determined by the person’s body dimensions and locomotor capabilities. From an ecological perspective, the ability to take these factors into account begins with the perception of affordances. The aim of this chapter is to review recent theoretical developments and empirical research on affordance perception and its role in the visual control of locomotion, including basic locomotor tasks such as avoiding stationary and moving obstacles, walking to targets, and selecting routes through complex scenes. The focus will be on studies conducted in virtual environments, which have created new and exciting opportunities to investigate how people perceive affordances, guide locomotion, and adapt to changes in body dimensions and locomotor capabilities.

Keywords

Locomotion Affordance perception Optic flow Perception Cognition Walking 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this chapter was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (1R01EY019317).

References

  1. 1.
    Adolph KE (2008) The growing body in action: what infant locomotion tells us about perceptually guided action. In: Klatzky MBR, MacWhinney B (ed) Embodiment, ego-space, and action. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 275–321Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bastin J, Fajen BR, Montagne G (2010) Controlling speed and direction during interception: an affordance-based approach. Exp Brain Res 201(4):763–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bootsma RJ (2009) Lee’s 1976 paper. Perception 38(6):851Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chapman S (1968) Catching a baseball. Am J Phys 36:368–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chhabra M, Jacobs RA (2006) Near-optimal human adaptive control across different noise environments. J Neurosci 26(42):10883–10887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fajen BR, Diaz G, Cramer C (2011) Reconsidering the role of movement in perceiving action-scaled affordances. Hum Mov Sci 30(3):504–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fajen BR, Matthis JM (in press). Visual and non-visual contributions to the perception of object motion during self-motion. PLoS ONEGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fajen BR, Matthis JS (2011) Direct perception of action-scaled affordances: the shrinking gap problem. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37(5):1442–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fajen BR, Riley MA, Turvey MT (2009) Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. Int J Sport Psychol 40(1):79–107Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fajen BR, Warren WH (2004) Visual guidance of intercepting a moving target on foot. Perception 33(6):689–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fath AJ, Fajen BR (2011) Static and dynamic visual information about the size and passability of an aperture. Perception 40:887–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fink PW, Foo PS., Warren WH (2007) Obstacle avoidance during walking in real and virtual environments. ACM Trans Appl Percept 4(1):1–18 (Article 2)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geuss MN, Stefanucci JK, Creem-Regehr SH, Thompson WB (2012) Effect of viewing plane on perceived distances in real and virtual environments. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept PerformGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ivanenko YP, Dominici N, Daprati E, Nico D, Cappellini G, Lacquaniti F (2011) Locomotor body scheme. Hum Mov Sci 30(2):341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelly JW, Riecke B, Loomis JM, Beall AC (2008) Visual control of posture in real and virtual environments. Percept Psychophys 70(1):158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knapp JM, Loomis JM (2004) Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 13(5):572–577Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee DN (1976) A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception 5(4):437–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee DN (1980) Visuo-motor coordination in space-time. In: Stelmach GE, Requin J (eds) Tutorials in motor behavior. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loomis JM, Beall AC (2004) Model-based control of perception-action. In: Vaina LM, Beardsley SA, Rushton SK (eds) Optic flow and beyond. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mark LS (1987) Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: a study of sitting and stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mark LS, Jiang Y, King SS, Paasche J (1999) The impact of visual exploration of judgments of whether a gap is crossable. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25(1):287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McLeod P, Reed N, Dienes Z (2006) The generalized optic acceleration cancellation theory of catching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(1):139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Michaels CF, Oudejans RR (1992) The optics and actions of catching fly balls: zeroing out optical acceleration. Ecol Psychol 4:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oudejans RD, Michaels CF, Bakker FC, Dolné MA (1996) The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: perception of catchableness of fly balls. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22(4):879–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pepping G, Li FX (2000) Changing action capabilities and the perception of affordances. J Hum Mov Stud 39:115–140Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plumert JM, Kearney JK, Cremer JF (2004) Children’s perception of gap affordances: bicycling across traffic-filled intersections in an immersive virtual environment. Child Dev 75(4):1243–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sedgwick HA (1980) The geometry of spatial layout in pictorial representation. In: Hagen M (ed) The perception of pictures VI. Academic Press, New York, pp 33–90Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14(5 Pt 2):3208–3224Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shadmehr R, Smith MA, Krakauer JW (2010) Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annu Rev Neurosci 33:89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thompson WB, Willemsen P, Gooch AA, Creem-Regehr SH, Loomis JM, Beall AC (2004) Does the quality of the computer graphics matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments? Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 13(5):560–571Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Trommershauser J, Maloney LT, Landy MS (2008) Decision making, movement planning and statistical decision theory. Trends Cogn Sci 12(8):291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Warren WH (1984) Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:683–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Warren WH (2007) Action-scaled information for the visual control of locomotion. In: Pepping G, Grealy MA (eds) Closing the gap: the scientific writings of David N. Lee. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Warren WH, Whang S (1987) Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13(3):371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Watson G, Brault S, Kulpa R, Bideau B, Butterfield J, Craig C (2011) Judging the ‘passability’ of dynamic gaps in a virtual rugby environment. Hum Mov Sci 30(5):942–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wraga M (1999) The role of eye height in perceiving affordances and object dimensions. Percept Psychophys 61(3):490–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yilmaz EH, Warren WH Jr (1995) Visual control of braking: a test of the tau hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21(5):996–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zaal FTJM, Bootsma RJ (2001) Virtual reality as a tool for the study of perception-action: the case of running to catch fly balls. Presence 20(1):93–103Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations