Helen E. Ross

Optic-Flow and Cognitive Factors in Time-to-Collision Estimates

Time-to-collision (Tc) estimates were obtained from twenty-four subjects who viewed film clips for varying lengths of time. The film clips showed the view from a moving car travelling towards a stationary target car, but ended 100 m before reaching the target. Viewing time varied from 2 to 6 s, approach velocity from 40 to 100 km h−1, and Tc from 3.6 to 9.0 s. It was hypothesised that, if time were needed to calculate Tc, the accuracy of Tc estimates would increase with viewing time up to some maximum. However, the results showed no effect of viewing time, and this was taken to indicate that estimates were based upon information directly available from the changing optic array at the eye of the observer. A significant velocity effect was found, accuracy increasing with velocity. Since velocity was inversely correlated with Tc, this probably implies that accuracy decreases with increasing Tc. Sex differences were found, with males giving higher and more accurate estimates than females. The relevance of these findings to the nature of Tc information is discussed.

When is a weight not illusory

Weight illusions occur whenever some aspect of an object—such as its size, material or colour—arouses the expectation that its weight will be heavier or lighter than it actually is. The direction of the illusion normally contrasts with the expected weight. When objects are hidden from sight and lifted by strings they can provide no misleading cues, and a correct weight-expectation should be achieved after one or two trials. When a visible object has the same physical and apparent weight as a hidden object, it can be defined as non-illusory. Weighted tins and polystyrene blocks of various sizes were compared with hidden weights. Tins were found to be non-illusory when their density was about 1.7, and polystyrene blocks when their density was about 0.14. Weight illusions may be due to a central scaling process which enables a wide range of weights to be estimated, different ranges being selected according to the expected value of the weight. If the selected range is inappropriate an illusion occurs. Changes in expected value could also allow for the operation of “weight-constancy” during changes in proprioceptive stimulation.

Weber fractions for weight and mass as a function of stimulus intensity

Laboratory simulations of weightlessness have shown that the Weber fraction for mass is higher than that for weight in the range 1000–7000 g. Experiments in the weightless conditions of orbital and parabolic flight have found the same at the 50 g level. To obtain measures at intermediate intensities, the Weber fractions for weight and mass were measured for 15 subjects at 50, 200 and 400 g. The stimuli were canisters suspended on strings. The subjects lifted them for the weight condition and swung them firmly sideways for the mass condition. The Weber fraction was higher for mass than for weight at all intensities, and increased at 50 g for both conditions. In a second mass condition, in which the subjects shook the cylinders within a loosely clenched hand, the Weber fraction remained almost constant at all intensities and was significantly smaller than for the firm swing method at 50 g. The differences in performance between conditions may be related to the continuity or intermittency of pressure information. Other explanations are discussed.

Mass estimation and discrimination during brief periods of zero gravity

Under zero gravity, the gravitational cues to mass are removed, but the inertial cues remain. A sensation of heaviness is generated if objects are shaken, and hence given a changing acceleration. A magnitude estimation experiment was conducted during the 0-G phase of parabolic flight and on the ground, and the results suggested that objects felt lighter under 0 G than under 1 G. Mass discrimination was also measured in flight, and yielded Weber fractions of .18 under 0 G, .16 under 1.8 G, and .09 under I G. Poor performance under microgravity and macrogravity was probably due mainly to lack of time for adaptation to changed G levels. It is predicted that discrimination should improve during the course of prolonged spaceflight, and that there should be an aftereffect of poor discrimination on return to earth.

Charpentier (1891) : On the size weight illusion

This paper offers background for an English translation of an article originally published in 1891 by Augustin Charpentier (1852–1916), as well as a summary of it. The article is frequently described as providing the first experimental evidence for the size—weight illusion. A comparison of experiments on the judged heaviness of lifted weights carried out by Weber (1834) and by Charpentier (1891) supports the view that Charpentiers work deserves priority; review of other experimental studies on the size-weight illusion in the 1890s suggests that the idea that the illusion depended on “disappointed expectations,” especially with respect to speed of lift, became dominant almost immediately following the publication of Charpentiers paper. The fate of this and other ideas, including “motor energy,” in 20th-century research on the illusion is briefly described.

Sensorimotor mechanisms in weight discrimination

The role of efferent and afferent signals in weight discrimination was investigated by using the tonic vibratory reflex contraction of the biceps muscle. Differential thresholds were obtained for two lifting conditions (normal and reflex) and two static conditions (with and without muscular tonus). Normal lifting gave finer discrimination than reflex lifting (Experiment 1). Normal lifting was also superior to the two static conditions (Experiment 2).Within the static conditions, the addition of muscular tonus gave finer discrimination. The reflex lifting condition gave thresholds similar to those for static holding with muscular tonus, lying between those for normal active lifting and those for static pressure. The reflex lifting and pressure-sensing thresholds were very much finer than the previous literature suggests. The relative contributions of efference and afference to weight discrimination are discussed.

How important are changes in body weight for mass perception

It is often assumed that weight judgements depend primarily on the effort experienced in lifting an object against a 1-G force. Changes in effort and in other weight-cues certainly alter apparent heaviness; but there is a tendency towards mass-constancy when such changes are unrelated to mass. Under water or altered G, both the observers body and other objects change their effective weight: the change in the former probably provides a cue to the latter. Mass-constancy increases with opportunity for adaptation to the change, leaving a negative aftereffect on return to normal circumstances. The discrimination of weight or mass also deteriorates with sudden changes in arm weight, just as it does with other types of maladaptation and with a reduction in sensory cues. The relative importance of arm weight and other factors has not been precisely measured, but experiments in prolonged spaceflight should help to elucidate the issue.

Motor skills under varied gravitoinertial force in parabolic flight

Parabolic flight produces brief alternating periods of high and low gravitoinertial force. Subjects were tested on various paper-and-pencil aiming and tapping task during both normal and varied gravity in flight. It was found that changes in g level caused directional errors in the z body axis (the gravity axis), the arm aiming too high under 0 g and too low under 2 g. The standard deviation also increased for both vertical and lateral movements in the mid-frontal plane. Both variable and directional errors were greater under 0g than 2g. In an unpaced reciprocal tapping task subjects tended to increase their error rate rather than their movement time, but showed a non-significant trend towards slower speeds under 0g for all movement orientations. Larger variable errors or slower speeds were probably due to the difficulty of re-organising a motor skill in an unfamiliar force environment, combined with anchorage difficulties under 0g.

Adaptation to Weight Transformation in Water

Objects weigh less in water than in air clue to the upthrust of the water. Swimmers might be expected to adapt to this transformation, perceiving objects as heavier at the end of a swimming period than at the start. Fourteen subjects wore required to estimate the weights of a set of tins in air, and of another set in water, before and after a 10 rain swimming period. Both sets of tins were judged significantly heavier on the second test, showing the expected adaptation and aftereffect. A second experiment comparing the estimated weights of tins in air and water showed that viscous drag did not increase apparent weight in water; but that some subjects made an intellectual correction for the loss of weight in water. Intellectual corrections may account for the appearance of ’ weight constancy ’ on entering the water, but cannot account for adaptation or aftereffect.

Weight illusions and weight discrimination—a revised hypothesis

The results of several experiments are reported most of which suggest that there is an optimum density for weight discrimination. This density corresponds to the “non-illusory” density, as determined by the density at which a visible weight is correctly matched with a hidden weight. The greater the illusion (whether of heaviness or lightness) the poorer the discrimination. It is pointed out that similar changes in discrimination occur as a result of peripheral sensory adaptation in many modalities; but that the size-weight illusion, and the associated discrimination changes, must be due to a central scaling process. A theoretical model is suggested.