Investigating the influence of visuospatial stimuli on driver's speed perception: a laboratory study.

Driving at an inappropriate speed is a major accident cause in the EU. Understanding the underlying sensory mechanisms can help to reduce speed and increase traffic safety. The present study investigated the effect of visuospatial stimuli on speed perception using an adaptive countermeasure to speeding based on a manipulation of optic flow. We added red lights on both sides of a simulated road. We expected speed to be perceived as faster when lights moved toward drivers due to increased optic flow, whereas we expected static light stimuli to not alter the optic flow and thus not influence speed perception. Two experiments applied the method of constant stimuli. To this end, participants encountered several trials of two video sequences on a straight road. A reference sequence showed the same traveling speed while test sequences varied around different traveling speeds. Participants indicated which sequence they perceived as faster, leading to the calculation of the point of subjective equality (PSE). A lower PSE indicates that the speed in this experimental condition is perceived as faster than in another experimental condition. Experiment 1A did not show a difference between PSEs of static and oncoming lights. Because participants had counted reflector posts for speed estimation, we removed these reflector posts in Experiment 1B and found a lower PSE for oncoming lights. Thus, such light stimuli may have an effect only in situations without other competing visual stimuli supporting speed perception. Future research should investigate whether speed perception is indeed a primarily visuospatial control task or whether other sensory information such as auditory factors can have an influence as well.

Intra- and intermodal integration of discrepant visual and proprioceptive action effects.

Integration of discrepant visual and proprioceptive action effects puts high demands on the human information processing system. The present study aimed to examine the integration mechanisms for the motor (Exp. 1) and visual modality (Exp. 2). According to theories of common coding, we assumed that visual as well as proprioceptive information is represented within the same cognitive domain and is therefore likely to affect each other (multisensory cross talk). Thus, apart from the often-confirmed visual dominance in multisensory integration, we asked about intra- and intermodal recall of either proprioceptive or visual information and whether there were any differences between the motor and visual modality. In a replication paradigm, we perturbed the relation between hand movements and cursor movements. The task required the (intra- vs. intermodal) replication of an initially performed (seen) hand (cursor) movement in a subsequent motor (visual) replication phase. First, mechanisms of integration were found to be dependent on the output modality. Visual action effects interfered the motor modality, but proprioceptive action effects did not have any effects on the visual modality. Second, however, intermodal integration was more susceptible to interference, and this was found to be independent from the output modality. Third, for the motor modality, the locus of perturbation (perturbation of cursor amplitude or perturbation of hand amplitude) was irrelevant, but for the visual modality, perturbation of hand amplitudes reduced the cross talk. Tool use is one field of application of these kinds of results, since the optimized integration of conflicting action effects is a precondition for using tools successfully.

Mirrored visual feedback limits distal effect anticipation.

Modern tools in technological environments are often characterized by a spatial separation of hand actions (operating a remote control) and their intended action effects (displayed movements of an unmanned vehicle, a robot, or an avatar on a screen). Often non-corresponding proximal and distal movement effects put high demands on the human information processing system. The present study aimed to investigate how modern technological environments influence processes of planning and controlling actions. Participants performed ipsi- or contralateral movements in response to colored stimuli, while the stimulus location had to be ignored. They did not see the stimuli and hands directly, but received visual feedback (with retained or reversed spatial relations) on a projection screen in front of them. Visual feedback retaining spatial relations led to the usual Simon effect. However, visual feedback reversing spatial relations inverted the Simon effect in ipsilateral responses, and eliminated it in contralateral responses (Exp. 1). Impairing the proximal movement-effect loop so that proprioceptive/tactile information from the moving hand was no longer a reliable source for planning and controlling actions attenuated compatibility effects (Exp. 2). Moreover, distal action effects predominated action control even for opposing body-related effects. It seemed that action control of transformed movements depended on the reliability of proprioceptive/tactile and visual information. When the amount of feature overlap between proprioception and vision was low and proprioceptive (visual) information was no longer reliable, then distal (proximal) action effects stepped forward and became crucial in controlling transformed actions.

Age effects on controlling tools with sensorimotor transformations.

Controlling tools in technical environments bears a lot of challenges for the human information processing system, as locations of tool manipulation and effect appearance are spatially separated, and distal action effects are often not generated in a 1:1 manner. In this study we investigated the susceptibility of older adults to distal action effects. Younger and older participants performed a Fitts' task on a digitizer tablet without seeing their hand and the tablet directly. Visual feedback was presented on a display in that way, that cursor amplitude and visual target size varied while the pre-determined hand amplitude remained constant. In accordance with distal action effects being predominant in controlling tool actions we found an increase in hand movement times and perceptual errors as a function of visual task characteristics. Middle-aged adults more intensely relied on visual feedback than younger adults. Age-related differences in speed-accuracy trade-off are not likely to account for this finding. However, it is well known that proprioceptive acuity declines with age. This might be one reason for middle-aged adults to stronger rely on the visual information instead of the proprioceptive information. Consequently, design and application of tools for elderly should account for this.