IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002080.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Haptic Size Sensations Improve Distance Perception

Author

Listed:
  • Peter W Battaglia
  • Daniel Kersten
  • Paul R Schrater

Abstract

Determining distances to objects is one of the most ubiquitous perceptual tasks in everyday life. Nevertheless, it is challenging because the information from a single image confounds object size and distance. Though our brains frequently judge distances accurately, the underlying computations employed by the brain are not well understood. Our work illuminates these computions by formulating a family of probabilistic models that encompass a variety of distinct hypotheses about distance and size perception. We compare these models' predictions to a set of human distance judgments in an interception experiment and use Bayesian analysis tools to quantitatively select the best hypothesis on the basis of its explanatory power and robustness over experimental data. The central question is: whether, and how, human distance perception incorporates size cues to improve accuracy. Our conclusions are: 1) humans incorporate haptic object size sensations for distance perception, 2) the incorporation of haptic sensations is suboptimal given their reliability, 3) humans use environmentally accurate size and distance priors, 4) distance judgments are produced by perceptual “posterior sampling”. In addition, we compared our model's estimated sensory and motor noise parameters with previously reported measurements in the perceptual literature and found good correspondence between them. Taken together, these results represent a major step forward in establishing the computational underpinnings of human distance perception and the role of size information. Author Summary: Perceiving the distance to an object can be difficult because a monocular visual image is influenced by the object's distance and size, so the object's image size alone cannot uniquely determine the distance. However, because object distance is so important in everyday life, our brains have developed various strategies to overcome this difficulty and enable accurate perceptual distance estimates. A key strategy the brain employs is to use touched size sensations, as well as background information regarding the object's size, to rule out incorrect size/distance combinations; our work studies the brain's computations that underpin this strategy. We modified a sophisticated model that prescribes how humans should estimate object distance to encompass a broad set of hypotheses about how humans do estimate distance in actuality. We then used data from a distance perception experiment to select which modified model best accounts for human performance. Our analysis reveals how people use touch sensations and how they bias their distance judgments to conform with true object statistics in the enviroment. Our results provide a comprehensive account of human distance perception and the role of size information, which significantly improves cognitive scientists' understanding of this fundamental, important, and ubiquitous behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter W Battaglia & Daniel Kersten & Paul R Schrater, 2011. "How Haptic Size Sensations Improve Distance Perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002080
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002080
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002080&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002080?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David R Wozny & Ulrik R Beierholm & Ladan Shams, 2010. "Probability Matching as a Computational Strategy Used in Perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-7, August.
    2. Konrad P Körding & Ulrik Beierholm & Wei Ji Ma & Steven Quartz & Joshua B Tenenbaum & Ladan Shams, 2007. "Causal Inference in Multisensory Perception," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(9), pages 1-10, September.
    3. Marc O. Ernst & Martin S. Banks, 2002. "Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6870), pages 429-433, January.
    4. David J. Spiegelhalter & Nicola G. Best & Bradley P. Carlin & Angelika Van Der Linde, 2002. "Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(4), pages 583-639, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elina Stengård & Ronald van den Berg, 2019. "Imperfect Bayesian inference in visual perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, April.
    2. Luigi Acerbi & Sethu Vijayakumar & Daniel M Wolpert, 2014. "On the Origins of Suboptimality in Human Probabilistic Inference," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Nils Neupärtl & Fabian Tatai & Constantin A Rothkopf, 2020. "Intuitive physical reasoning about objects’ masses transfers to a visuomotor decision task consistent with Newtonian physics," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, October.
    4. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    5. James R H Cooke & Arjan C ter Horst & Robert J van Beers & W Pieter Medendorp, 2017. "Effect of depth information on multiple-object tracking in three dimensions: A probabilistic perspective," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Luigi Acerbi & Daniel M Wolpert & Sethu Vijayakumar, 2012. "Internal Representations of Temporal Statistics and Feedback Calibrate Motor-Sensory Interval Timing," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luigi Acerbi & Kalpana Dokka & Dora E Angelaki & Wei Ji Ma, 2018. "Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-38, July.
    2. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Wendy J Adams, 2016. "The Development of Audio-Visual Integration for Temporal Judgements," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Jannes Jegminat & Maya A Jastrzębowska & Matthew V Pachai & Michael H Herzog & Jean-Pascal Pfister, 2020. "Bayesian regression explains how human participants handle parameter uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Christoph Kayser & Ladan Shams, 2015. "Multisensory Causal Inference in the Brain," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-7, February.
    6. Patricia Besson & Christophe Bourdin & Lionel Bringoux, 2011. "A Comprehensive Model of Audiovisual Perception: Both Percept and Temporal Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-11, August.
    7. Tim Genewein & Eduard Hez & Zeynab Razzaghpanah & Daniel A Braun, 2015. "Structure Learning in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-27, August.
    8. Luigi Acerbi & Sethu Vijayakumar & Daniel M Wolpert, 2014. "On the Origins of Suboptimality in Human Probabilistic Inference," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Guido Marco Cicchini & Giovanni D’Errico & David Charles Burr, 2022. "Crowding results from optimal integration of visual targets with contextual information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Jeroen Atsma & Femke Maij & Mathieu Koppen & David E Irwin & W Pieter Medendorp, 2016. "Causal Inference for Spatial Constancy across Saccades," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, March.
    11. Ksander N de Winkel & Mikhail Katliar & Heinrich H Bülthoff, 2017. "Causal Inference in Multisensory Heading Estimation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Sophie Smit & Anina N Rich & Regine Zopf, 2019. "Visual body form and orientation cues do not modulate visuo-tactile temporal integration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, December.
    13. David R Wozny & Ulrik R Beierholm & Ladan Shams, 2010. "Probability Matching as a Computational Strategy Used in Perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-7, August.
    14. Pedram Daee & Maryam S Mirian & Majid Nili Ahmadabadi, 2014. "Reward Maximization Justifies the Transition from Sensory Selection at Childhood to Sensory Integration at Adulthood," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    15. Buddhavarapu, Prasad & Bansal, Prateek & Prozzi, Jorge A., 2021. "A new spatial count data model with time-varying parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 566-586.
    16. Mumtaz, Haroon & Theodoridis, Konstantinos, 2017. "Common and country specific economic uncertainty," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 205-216.
    17. Jesse Elliott & Zemin Bai & Shu-Ching Hsieh & Shannon E Kelly & Li Chen & Becky Skidmore & Said Yousef & Carine Zheng & David J Stewart & George A Wells, 2020. "ALK inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    19. Francois Olivier & Laval Guillaume, 2011. "Deviance Information Criteria for Model Selection in Approximate Bayesian Computation," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, July.
    20. Raggi, Davide & Bordignon, Silvano, 2012. "Long memory and nonlinearities in realized volatility: A Markov switching approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 3730-3742.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002080. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.