Li Zhi, Phillips John, Durgin Frank H
Swarthmore College, Department of Psychology, 500 College Ave, Swarthmore, PA 19081, USA.
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011 Oct;73(7):2205-17. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0170-2.
There is controversy over the existence, nature, and cause of error in egocentric distance judgments. One proposal is that the systematic biases often found in explicit judgments of egocentric distance along the ground may be related to recently observed biases in the perceived declination of gaze (Durgin & Li, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, in press), To measure perceived egocentric distance nonverbally, observers in a field were asked to position themselves so that their distance from one of two experimenters was equal to the frontal distance between the experimenters. Observers placed themselves too far away, consistent with egocentric distance underestimation. A similar experiment was conducted with vertical frontal extents. Both experiments were replicated in panoramic virtual reality. Perceived egocentric distance was quantitatively consistent with angular bias in perceived gaze declination (1.5 gain). Finally, an exocentric distance-matching task was contrasted with a variant of the egocentric matching task. The egocentric matching data approximate a constant compression of perceived egocentric distance with a power function exponent of nearly 1; exocentric matches had an exponent of about 0.67. The divergent pattern between egocentric and exocentric matches suggests that they depend on different visual cues.
关于自我中心距离判断中误差的存在、性质和原因存在争议。一种观点认为,在沿地面的自我中心距离的明确判断中经常发现的系统偏差可能与最近观察到的注视偏角感知偏差有关(Durgin和Li,《注意力、感知与心理物理学》,即将出版)。为了以非语言方式测量感知到的自我中心距离,让现场的观察者调整自己的位置,使他们与两名实验者中一人的距离等于两名实验者之间的正面距离。观察者站得太远,这与自我中心距离被低估是一致的。对垂直正面范围进行了类似的实验。这两个实验都在全景虚拟现实中进行了重复。感知到的自我中心距离在数量上与感知到的注视偏角的角度偏差一致(增益为1.5)。最后,将外中心距离匹配任务与自我中心匹配任务的一个变体进行了对比。自我中心匹配数据近似于感知到的自我中心距离的恒定压缩,幂函数指数接近1;外中心匹配的指数约为0.67。自我中心匹配和外中心匹配之间的不同模式表明,它们依赖于不同的视觉线索。