Search

To read this article, you have to constantly direct your gaze at the words on the page. If you go for a run instead, your gaze will be less constrained, so many factors could influence where you look. We show that you are likely to spend less time looking at the path just in front of you when running alone than when running with someone else, presumably because the presence of the other runner makes foot placement more critical., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

When intercepting moving targets, people perform slightly better if they follow their natural tendency to pursue the target with their eyes. Is this because the velocity is judged more precisely when pursuing the target? To find out, we compared how well people could determine which of two sequentially presented moving bars was moving faster. There was always also a static bar on the screen. People judged the moving bar's velocity about 10% more precisely when pursuing it than when fixating the static bar.

The size-weight illusion is well-known: if two equally heavy objects differ in size, the large one feels lighter than the small one. Most explanations for this illusion assume that because the information about the relevant attribute (weight itself) is unreliable, information about an irrelevant but correlated attribute (size) is used as well. If such reasoning is correct, one would expect that the illusion can be inverted: if size information is unreliable, weight information will be used to judge size. We explored whether such a weight-size illusion exists by asking participants to lift Styrofoam balls that were coated with glow in the dark paint. The balls (2 sizes, 3 weights) were lifted using a pulley system in complete darkness at 2 distances. Participants reported the size using free magnitude estimation. The visual size information was indeed unreliable: balls that were presented at a 20% larger distance were judged 15% smaller. Nevertheless, the judgments of size were not systematically affected by the 20% weight change (differences < 0.5%). We conclude that because the weight-size illusion does not exist, the mechanism behind the size-weight illusion is specific for judging heaviness.

Does recognizing the transformations that gave rise to an object's retinal image contribute to early object recognition? It might, because finding a partially occluded object among similar objects that are not occluded is more difficult than finding an object that has the same retinal image shape without evident occlusion. If this is because the occlusion is recognized as such, we might see something similar for other transformations. We confirmed that it is difficult to find a cookie with a section missing when this was the result of occlusion. It is not more difficult to find a cookie from which a piece has been bitten off than to find one that was baked in a similar shape. On the contrary, the bite marks help detect the bitten cookie. Thus, biting off a part of a cookie has very different effects on visual search than occluding part of it. These findings do not support the idea that observers rapidly and automatically compensate for the ways in which objects' shapes are transformed to give rise to the objects' retinal images. They are easy to explain in terms of detecting characteristic features in the retinal image that such transformations may hide or create.

People often look at objects that they are holding in their hands. It is therefore reasonable to expect them to be able to direct their gaze precisely with respect to their fingers. However, we know that people make reproducible idiosyncratic errors of up to a few centimetres when they try to align a visible cursor to their own finger hidden below a surface. To find out whether they also make idiosyncratic errors when they try to look at their finger, we asked participants to hold their finger in front of their head in the dark, and look at it. Participants made idiosyncratic errors of a similar magnitude to those previously found when matching a visual cursor to their hidden finger. This shows that proprioceptive position sense of finger and gaze are not aligned, suggesting that people rely on vision to guide their gaze to their own finger.

It has been proposed that haptic spatial perception depends on one's visual abilities. We tested spatial perception in the workspace using a combination of haptic matching and line drawing tasks. There were 132 participants with varying degrees of visual ability ranging from congenitally blind to normally sighted. Each participant was blindfolded and asked to match a haptic target position felt under a table with their nondominant hand using a pen in their dominant hand. Once the pen was in position on the tabletop, they had to draw a line of equal length to a previously felt reference object by moving the pen laterally. We used targets at three different locations to evaluate whether different starting positions relative to the body give rise to different matching errors, drawn line lengths, or drawn line angles. We found no influence of visual ability on matching error, drawn line length, or line angle, but we found that early-blind participants are slightly less consistent in their matching errors across space. We conclude that the elementary haptic abilities tested in these tasks do not depend on visual experience.