Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon

Nature volume 414, pages 197–200 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

A biological system is often more efficient when it takes advantage of the regularities in its environment1,2. Like other terrestrial creatures, our spatial sense relies on the regularities associated with the ground surface2,3,4,5,6. A simple, but important, ecological fact is that the field of view of the ground surface extends upwards from near (feet) to infinity (horizon)2. It forms the basis of a trigonometric relationship wherein the further an object on the ground is, the higher in the field of view it looks, with an object at infinity being seen at the horizon. Here, we provide support for the hypothesis that the visual system uses the angular declination below the horizon for distance judgement. Using a visually directed action task7,8,9,10, we found that when the angular declination was increased by binocularly viewing through base-up prisms, the observer underestimated distance. After adapting to the same prisms, however, the observer overestimated distance on prism removal. Most significantly, we show that the distance overestimation as an after-effect of prism adaptation was due to a lowered perceived eye level, which reduced the object's angular declination below the horizon.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The angular declination hypothesis.
Figure 2: The effect of viewing through a pair of 10 PD base-up prisms and the after-effect of adaptation to base-up prisms on judged distance in the light (n = 7).
Figure 3: Perceived locations of a dim target in the dark for the baseline, prism and after-effect conditions.
Figure 4: Veridical judgement of angular declination and its monotonic relationship to distance.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Attneave, F. Informational aspects of visual perception. Psychol. Rev. 61, 183–193 (1954).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gibson, J. J. The Perception of the Visual World (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1950).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sedgwick, H. A. in Human and Machine Vision (eds Rosenthal, A. & Beck, J.) 425–458 (Academic, New York, 1983).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Sedgwick, H. A. in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance (eds Boff, K. R., Kaufman, L. & Thomas, J. P.) 21.1–21.57 (Wiley, New York, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sinai, M. J., Ooi, T. L. & He, Z. J. Terrain influences the accurate judgement of distance. Nature 395, 497–500 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Meng, J. C. & Sedgwick, H. A. Distance perception mediated through nested contact relations among surface. Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1–15 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomson, J. A. Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion? J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 9, 427–443 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rieser, J. J., Ashmead, D., Talor, C. & Youngquist, G. Visual perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets. Perception 19, 675–689 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Loomis, J., DaSilva, J., Fujita, N. & Fukusima, S. Visual space perception and visually directed action. J. Exp. Psychol. 18, 906–921 (1992).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Loomis, J., DaSilva, J., Philbeck, J. W. & Fukusima, S. Visual perception of location and distance. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 5, 72–77 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Warren, W. H. & Whang, S. Visual guidance of walking through apertures: Body-scaled information for affordances. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 13, 371–383 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Held, R. & Freedman, S. Plasticity in human sensorimotor control. Science 142, 455–462 (1963).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hay, J. C. & Pick, H. L. Jr Visual and proprioceptive adaptation to optical displacement of the visual stimulus. J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 150–158 (1966).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sugita, Y. Global plasticity in adult visual cortex following reversal of visual input. Nature 380, 523–526 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rieser, J. J., Pick, H. L. Jr, Ashmead, D. H., & Garing, A. E. Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 480–497 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Matin, L. et al. Oculoparalytic illusion: Visual-field dependent spatial mislocalization by humans partially paralyzed with curare. Science 216, 198–201 (1982).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stoper, A. & Cohen, M. Judgments of eye level in light and in darkness. Percept. Psychophys. 40, 311–316 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gogel, W. C. & Tietz, J. D. Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency. Percept. Psychophys. 13, 284–292 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Epstein, W. Perceived depth as a function of relative height under three background conditions. J. Exp. Psychol. 72, 335–338 (1966).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wallach, H. & O'Leary, A. Slope of regard as a distance cue. Percept. Psychophys. 31, 145–148 (1982).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Philbeck, J. W. & Loomis, J. M. Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 23, 72–85 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank K. A. May and P. J. Gunther for their assistance in collecting the data in the first experiment. This research was supported in part by grants from the Knights Templar Eye Foundation and the Southern College of Optometry (to T.L.O.) and a Competitive Enhancement Grant from the University of Louisville (to Z.J.H.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Southern College of Optometry, Memphis, 38104, Tennessee, USA

    Teng Leng Ooi

  2. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, 40292, Kentucky, USA

    Bing Wu & Zijiang J. He

Authors
  1. Teng Leng Ooi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zijiang J. He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teng Leng Ooi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ooi, T., Wu, B. & He, Z. Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon. Nature 414, 197–200 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35102562

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35102562

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing