Monocular information for perceiving large egocentric distance: A comparison between monocularly blind patients and normally sighted observers.

The debate surrounding the advantages of binocular versus monocular vision has persisted for decades. This study aimed to investigate whether individuals with monocular vision loss could accurately and precisely perceive large egocentric distances in real-world environments, under natural viewing conditions, comparable to those with normal vision. A total of 49 participants took part in the study, divided into three groups based on their viewing conditions. Two experiments were conducted to assess the accuracy and precision of estimating egocentric distances to visual targets and the coordination of actions during blind walking. In Experiment 1, participants were positioned in both a hallway and a large open field, tasked with judging the midpoint of self-to-target distances spanning from 5 to 30 m. Experiment 2 involved a blind walking task, where participants attempted to walk towards the same targets without visual or environmental feedback at an unusually rapid pace. The findings revealed that perceptual accuracy and precision were primarily influenced by the environmental context, motion condition, and target distance, rather than the visual conditions. Surprisingly, individuals with monocular vision loss demonstrated comparable accuracy and precision in perceiving egocentric distances to that of individuals with normal vision.

Targeted reaching with monocular depth information and haptic feedback: Comparing between monocular patients and normally sighted observers.

Monocular blindness impairs visual depth perception, yet patients seldom report difficulties in targeted actions like reaching, walking, or driving. We hypothesized that by utilizing monocular depth information and calibrating actions with haptic feedback, monocular patients can perceive egocentric distance and perform targeted actions. We compared targeted reaching in monocular patients, monocular-viewing, and binocular-viewing normal controls. Sixty observers reached either a far or a near target, calibrating reaches to the near target with accurate or false feedback while leaving reaches to the far target uncalibrated. Reaching accuracy and precision were analyzed. Results indicated no difference in reaching accuracy between monocular patients and normal controls; all groups initially underestimated distances before until calibration. Monocular patients responded to calibration sensitively, achieving accuracy in calibrated reaches and generalizing this effect to uncalibrated distances. Thus, with monocular depth information and haptic feedback, monocular patients could perceive distance and accomplish targeted reaching.

A geometric and dynamic affordance model of reaches-to-grasp: Men take greater risks than women.

Mon-Williams and Bingham (2011) developed an affordance model of the spatial structure of reaches-to-grasp. With a single free parameter (P), the model predicted the safety margins (SMs) exhibited in maximum grasp apertures (MGAs), during the approach of a hand to a target object, as a function of an affordance measure of object size and a functional measure of hand size. An affordance analysis revealed that object size is determined by a diagonal through the object, called the maximum object extent. Mon-Williams and Bingham provided no theoretical account for the empirically determined values of P. We now address this question. Snapp-Childs and Bingham (2009) augmented Warren's (1984) geometric affordance scaling model with a dynamical component determined by the stability of the motor performance. Because P was found to vary with the speeds of reaches, we incorporated a measure of the variability of performance into the model to yield predictions of P. We also found that P varied with gender. In respect to the size of safety margins, women were more conservative in taking risks then men. Finally, following Warren (1984), the classic paradigm for testing affordance models is to test the scaling relations with both small and large participants. We tested small- and large-handed men and small- and large-handed women and found that the new parameter free model successfully accounted for the spatial structure of reaches-to-grasp.

Calibration is both functional and anatomical.

Bingham and Pagano (1998) described calibration as a mapping from embodied perceptual units to an embodied action unit and suggested that it is an inherent component of perception/action that yields accurate targeted actions. We tested two predictions of this "Mapping Theory." First, calibration should transfer between limbs, because it involves a mapping from perceptual units to an action unit, and thus is functionally specific to the action (Pan, Coats, and Bingham, 2014). We used distorted haptic feedback to calibrate feedforward right hand reaches and tested right and left hand reaches after calibration. The calibration transferred. Second, the Mapping Theory predicts that limb specific calibration should be possible because the units are embodied and anatomy contributes to their scaling. Limbs must be calibrated to one another given potential anatomical differences among limbs. We used distorted haptic feedback to calibrate feedforward reaches with right and left arms simultaneously in opposite directions relative to a visually specified target. Reaches tested after calibration revealed reliable limb specific calibration. Both predictions were confirmed. This resolves a prevailing controversy as to whether calibration is functional (Bruggeman & Warren, 2010; Rieser, Pick, Ashmead, & Garing, 1995) or anatomical (Durgin et al., 2003; Durgin & Pelah, 1999). Necessarily, it is both.

Perturbation of perceptual units reveals dominance hierarchy in cross calibration.

Bingham and Pagano (1998) argued that calibration is an intrinsic component of perception-action that yields accurate targeted actions. They described calibration as of a mapping from embodied units of perception to embodied units of action. This mapping theory yields a number of predictions. The authors tested 2 of them. The 1st prediction is that change in the size of perceptual units should yield a corresponding change in the slope of the relation between response distances and actual target distances. In Experiment 1, the authors tested this prediction by manipulating interpupillary distance (IPD) as the unit for binocular perception of distance using vergence angles. In Experiment 2, they manipulated eye height (EH) as the unit for monocular perception of distance using elevation angles. In both cases, the results confirmed the predictions. The 2nd prediction was that perceptual units should interact to cross calibrate one another according to a dominance hierarchy among the units. The theory predicts a more temporally stable unit is used to calibrate a less stable unit but not the reverse. EH units change frequently, but IPD units do not, so IPD should be dominant. Simultaneously available IPD and EH units were perturbed successively (without feedback). As predicted, EH was recalibrated by IPD, but IPD was not recalibrated by EH. The mapping among units theory of calibration was thus supported.

Calibration is action specific but perturbation of perceptual units is not.

G. P. Bingham and C. C. Pagano (1998, The necessity of a perception/action approach to definite distance perception: Monocular distance perception to guide reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 145-168) argued that metric space perception should be investigated using relevant action measures because calibration is an intrinsic component of perception/action that yields accurate targeted actions. They described calibration as a mapping from embodied units of perception to embodied units of action. This mapping theory yields a number of predictions. We tested two of them. The first prediction is that calibration should be action specific because what is calibrated is a mapping from perceptual units to a unit of action. Thus, calibration does not generalize to other actions. This prediction is consistent with the "action-specific approach" to calibration (D. R. Proffitt, 2008, An action specific approach to spatial perception. In R. L. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney, & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space and action (pp. 179-202). New York, NY: Psychology Press.). The second prediction is that a change in perceptual units should generalize to all relevant actions that are guided using that perceptual information. The same perceptual units can be mapped to different actions. Change in the unit affects all relevant actions. This prediction is consistent with the "general purpose perception approach" (J. M. Loomis & J. W. Philbeck, 2008, Measuring spatial perception with spatial updating and action. In R. L. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney, & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space and action (pp. 1-43). New York, NY: Psychology Press). In Experiment 1, two targeted actions, throwing and extended reaching were tested to determine if they were comparable in precision and in response to distorted calibration. They were. Comparing these actions, the first prediction was tested in Experiment 2 and confirmed. The second prediction was tested in Experiment 3 and confirmed. The action-specific and general purpose perception approaches each fail to predict the alternative results predicted by the other. Both sets of results were predicted by the mapping among embodied units theory of calibration.