Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T20:12:49.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptual experience as a bridge between the retina and a bicoded cognitive map

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2013

Frank H. Durgin  and
Zhi Li
Frank H. Durgin
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081. fdurgin1@swarthmore.edu zhi.li.sh@gmail.com http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/fdurgin1/publications.html
Zhi Li
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081. fdurgin1@swarthmore.edu zhi.li.sh@gmail.com http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/fdurgin1/publications.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bicoded cognitive maps described by Jeffery et al. are compared to metric perceptual representations. Systematic biases in perceptual experience of egocentric distance, height, and surface orientation may reflect information processing choices to retain information critical for immediate action (Durgin et al. 2010a). Different information processing goals (route planning vs. immediate action) require different metric information.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 549
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Durgin, F. H., Hajnal, A., Li, Z., Tonge, N. & Stigliani, A. (2010a) Palm boards are not action measures: An alternative to the two-systems theory of geographical slant perception. Acta Psychologica 134:182–97.Google Scholar
Durgin, F. H. & Li, Z. (2011) Perceptual scale expansion: An efficient angular coding strategy for locomotor space. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 73(6):1856–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durgin, F. H. & Li, Z. (2012) Spatial biases and the haptic experience of surface orientation. In: Haptics rendering and applications, ed. El Saddik, A., pp. 75–94. Intech.Google Scholar
Durgin, F. H., Li, Z. & Hajnal, A. (2010b) Slant perception in near space is categorically biased: Evidence for a vertical tendency. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 72:1875–89.Google Scholar
Foley, J. M., Ribeiro, N. P. & Da Silva, J. (2004) Visual perception of extent and the geometry of visual space. Vision Research 44:147–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hajnal, A., Abdul-Malak, D. T. & Durgin, F. H. (2011) The perceptual experience of slope by foot and by finger. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 37:709–19.Google Scholar
Higashiyama, A. & Ueyama, E. (1988) The perception of vertical and horizontal distances in outdoor settings. Perception and Psychophysics 44:151–56. doi: 10.3758/BF03208707.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. W., Loomis, J. M. & Beall, A. C. (2004) Judgments of exocentric direction in large-scale space. Perception 33:443–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Z. & Durgin, F. H. (2010) Perceived slant of binocularly viewed large-scale surfaces: A common model from explicit and implicit measures. Journal of Vision 10(14):article 13:1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Z. & Durgin, F. H. (2012) A comparison of two theories of perceived distance on the ground plane: The angular expansion hypothesis and the intrinsic bias hypothesis. i-Perception 3:368–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Z, Phillips, J. & Durgin, F. H. (2011) The underestimation of egocentric distance: Evidence from frontal matching tasks. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 73:2205–2217.Google Scholar
Li, Z., Sun, E., Strawser, C. J., Spiegel, A., Klein, B. & Durgin, F. H. (2013) On the anisotropy of perceived ground extents and the interpretation of walked distance as a measure of perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 39:477–493.Google Scholar
Loomis, J. M., Da Silva, J. A., Fujita, N. & Fukusima, S. S. (1992) Visual space perception and visually directed action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18(4):906–921.Google Scholar
Loomis, J. M. & Philbeck, J. W. (1999) Is the anisotropy of perceived 3-D shape invariant across scale? Perception and Psychophysics 61:397–402.Google Scholar
Messing, R. M. & Durgin, F. H. (2005) Distance perception and the visual horizon in head-mounted displays. Transactions on Applied Perception 2:234–50.Google Scholar
Ooi, T. L. & He, Z. J. (2007) A distance judgment function based on space perception mechanisms: Revisiting Gilinsky's (1951) equation. Psychological Review 114:441–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ooi, T. L., Wu, B. & He, Z. J. (2001) Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon. Nature 414:197–99.Google Scholar
Powers, W. T. (1973) Behavior: The control of perception. Aldine.Google Scholar
Proffitt, D. R., Bhalla, M., Gossweiler, R. & Midgett, J. (1995) Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2(4):409–28.Google Scholar
Rieser, J. J., Pick, H. L. Jr., Ashmead, D. & Garing, A. (1995) Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21:480–97.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. (1985) The metric of visual space. Perception and Psychophysics 38:483–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed