OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A


  • Editor: Stephen A. Burns
  • Vol. 25, Iss. 11 — Nov. 1, 2008
  • pp: 2851–2857

Oculomotor contribution to the change in perceived speed with viewing distance

George A. Geri, Byron J. Pierce, and Robert Patterson  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA A, Vol. 25, Issue 11, pp. 2851-2857 (2008)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (547 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



An array of moving circular stimuli was used to determine whether perceived speed is affected by the oculomotor responses associated with changes in viewing distance. The perceived speed of stimuli viewed at either 0.33 or 1.33 m was compared to the perceived speed of a similar stimulus viewed at a distance of 5.5 m . In addition, a control condition was run in which changes in perceived speed were compared for monocular viewing of the 0.33 m and 5.5 m stimuli. In the binocular condition, there were statistically significant decreases in perceived speed of about 11% for the 0.33 m viewing distance, and about 6.5% for the 1.33 m viewing distance. There was no significant decrease in perceived speed in the monocular condition. This latter finding, along with the similar appearance of the near and far stimuli in the monocular condition, suggests that ocular vergence (as opposed to accommodation or vergence–accommodation) was the primary determinant of the change in perceived speed with changes in binocular viewing distance. Although the change in perceived speed with fixation distance was relatively small, the data from all observers were in the direction of speed constancy. Thus, to the extent that vergence is a cue to egocentric distance, the present data suggest that egocentric distance is used to scale the perceived speed of targets moving at different distances from the observer.

© 2008 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.0330) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision, color, and visual optics
(330.2210) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - eye movements
(330.4150) Vision, color, and visual optics : Motion detection
(330.5510) Vision, color, and visual optics : Psychophysics

ToC Category:
Vision, Color, and Visual Optics

Original Manuscript: June 24, 2008
Revised Manuscript: August 13, 2008
Manuscript Accepted: August 28, 2008
Published: October 24, 2008

Virtual Issues
Vol. 4, Iss. 1 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

George A. Geri, Byron J. Pierce, and Robert Patterson, "Oculomotor contribution to the change in perceived speed with viewing distance," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 25, 2851-2857 (2008)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. W. C. Gogel and J. D. Tietz, “A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance,” Vision Res. 19, 1161-1170 (1979). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. J. Hochberg, “Perception II: space and motion,” in Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology, 3rd ed., J.W.Kling and L.A.Riggs, eds. (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971).
  3. R. W. Reading, Binocular Vision (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 103-111.
  4. D. A. Owens and H. W. Leibowitz, “Perceptual and motor consequences of tonic vergence,” in Vergence Eye Movements: Basic and Clinical Aspects, C.M.Schor and K.J.Ciufredda, eds. (Butterworth, 1983), pp. 25-74.
  5. H. A. Sedgwick, “Space perception,” in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. 1: Sensory Processes and Perception, K.R.Boff, L.Kaufman, and J.P.Thomas, eds. (Wiley, 1986), Chap. 21, pp. 1-57.
  6. E. G. Heinemann, E. Tulving, and J. Nachmias, “The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size,” Am. J. Psychol. 72, 32-45 (1959). [CrossRef]
  7. H. W. Leibowitz, K. Shiina, and R. T. Hennessy, “Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 12, 497-500 (1972). [CrossRef]
  8. M. K. Komoda and H. Ono, “Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception,” Percept. Psychophys. 15, 353-360 (1974). [CrossRef]
  9. H. Wallach and L. Floor, “The use of size matching to demonstrate the effectiveness of accommodation and convergence as cues for distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 10, 423-428 (1971). [CrossRef]
  10. S. P. McKee and L. Welch, “Is there a constancy for velocity?” Vision Res. 29, 553-561 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. S. P. McKee and H. S. Smallman, “Size and speed constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 373-408.
  12. I. Rock, A. L. Hill, and M. Fineman, “Speed constancy as a function of size constancy,” Percept. Psychophys. 4, 37-40 (1968). [CrossRef]
  13. H. Wallach, “On the constancy of visual speed,” Psychol. Rev. 46, 541-552 (1939). [CrossRef]
  14. W. Epstein, “Two factors in the perception of velocity at a distance,” Percept. Psychophys. 24, 105-114 (1978). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. E. Zohary and A. C. Sittig, “Mechanisms of velocity constancy,” Vision Res. 33, 2467-2478 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. S. K. Fischer and K. J. Ciufredda, “Accommodation and apparent distance,” Perception 17, 609-621 (1988). [CrossRef]
  17. H. K. Distler, K. R. Gegenfurtner, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and M. J. Hawken, “Velocity constancy in a virtual reality environment,” Perception 29, 1423-1435 (2000). [CrossRef]
  18. E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, J. Dichgans, and T. H. Brandt, “Perceived distance and the perceived speed of self-motion: linear vs. angular velocity?” Percept. Psychophys. 17, 549-554 (1975). [CrossRef]
  19. Rock, briefly describe a control condition related to their Experiment 2, in which they scaled the extent of target motion but not the size of the target. This leaves open the possibility that target size, and not target distance, mediated the degree of speed constancy reported (see also ).
  20. E. R. Wist, H. C. Diener, and J. Dichgans, “Motion constancy dependent upon perceived distance and the spatial frequency of the stimulus pattern,” Percept. Psychophys. 19, 485-491 (1976). [CrossRef]
  21. McKee and Welch varied perceived distance using a stereoscope, whereas Wist varied perceived distance using unequal luminances to the two eyes (i.e., the Pulfrich effect). Vergence was not varied in either of these studies, and the retinal disparities induced would not be expected to provide the necessary cues to egocentric distance [see also ].
  22. J. M. Foley, “Disparity increase with convergence for constant perceptual criteria,” Percept. Psychophys. 2, 605-608 (1967). [CrossRef]
  23. R. Patterson, “Human factors of 3-D displays,” J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 15, 861-871 (2007). [CrossRef]
  24. H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404-412 (1963). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. W. Epstein and W. J. Cody, “Perception of relative velocity: a revision of the hypothesis of relational determinism,” Perception 9, 47-60 (1980). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zohary and Sittig asked observers to view a monitor located at different optical distances from two stimulus apertures that were the same distance from the observer. Although small fixation points were provided on the monitor, the apertures may have provided a more salient fixation location. It is also not clear how the data may have been affected by the double images that would be expected with this experimental arrangement.
  27. T. S. Collett, U. Schwartz, and E. C. Sobel, “The interaction of oculomotor cues and stimulus size in stereoscopic depth perception,” Perception 20, 733-754. (1991). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. H. W. Leibowitz and D. Moore, “Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 345-358 (1966). [CrossRef]
  29. T. S. Collett and A. J. Parker, “Depth constancy,” in Perceptual Constancy, V.Walsh and J.Kulikowski, eds. (Cambridge U. Press, 1998), pp. 409-435.
  30. A. Pouget and T. J. Sejnowski, “A neural model of the cortical representation of egocentric distance,” Cereb. Cortex 4, 314-329 (1994). [PubMed]
  31. V. Walsh and J. Kulikowski, Perceptual Constancy (Cambridge U. Press, 1998).
  32. In addition to vergence, disparity is also a binocular cue. However, disparity cannot scale perceived speed because it is only a relative depth cue that must itself be scaled by egocentric distance.

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited