Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:15:55.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of binocular vision in walking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

MARY HAYHOE ,
BARBARA GILLAM ,
KELLY CHAJKA  and
ELIA VECELLIO
MARY HAYHOE*
Affiliation:
Center for Perceptual Systems, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
BARBARA GILLAM
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
KELLY CHAJKA
Affiliation:
Center for Perceptual Systems, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
ELIA VECELLIO
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
*Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Mary Hayhoe, Center for Perceptual Systems, Univ of Texas, Austin, University Station A8000, Austin TX 78712. E-mail: mary@mail.cps.utexas.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the extensive investigation of binocular and stereoscopic vision, relatively little is known about its importance in natural visually guided behavior. In this paper, we explored the role of binocular vision when walking over and around obstacles. We monitored eye position during the task as an indicator of the difference between monocular and binocular performances. We found that binocular vision clearly facilitates walking performance. Walkers were slowed by about 10% in monocular vision and raised their foot higher when stepping over obstacles. Although the location and sequence of the fixations did not change in monocular vision, the timing of the fixations relative to the actions was different. Subjects spent proportionately more time fixating the obstacles and fixated longer while guiding foot placement near an obstacle. The data are consistent with greater uncertainty in monocular vision, leading to a greater reliance on feedback in the control of the movements.

Keywords

Binocular visionStereo visionNatural behaviorFixation patternsControl of walking
Type
Natural Tasks
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 73 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

References

Babcock, J.S. & Pelz, J.B. (2000). The RIT wearable eye tracker. ACM SIGCHI Eye Tracking Research & Applications Symposium 109–114.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, M.F., Elliott, K.M., Watt, S.J., Hibbard, P.B., Davies, I.R.L. & Simpson, P.J. (2004). Binocular cues and the control of prehension. Spatial Vision 17, 95–110.Google ScholarPubMed
Bradshaw, M.F., Glennerster, A. & Rogers, B.J. (1996). The effect of display size on disparity scaling from differential perspective and vergence cues. Vision Research 36, 1255–1264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chajka, K., Hayhoe, M., Sullivan, B., Pelz, J., Mennie, N. & Droll, J. (2006). Predictive eye movements in squash. Journal of Vision 6, 481a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollands, M.A. & Marple-Horvat, D.E. (2001). Coordination of eye and leg movements during visually guided stepping. Journal of Motor Behavior 33, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansson, R.S., Westling, G., Bäckstrom, A. & Flanagan, J.R. (2001). Eye-hand coordination in object manipulation. Journal of Neuroscience 21, 6917–6932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R.K. & Lee, D.N. (1981). Why two eyes are better than one: The two views of binocular vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7, 30–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Liu, Y., Bovik, A.C. & Cormack, L.K. (2008). Disparity statistics in natural scenes. Journal of Vision 8,Article 19, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, A., Servos, P., Goodale, M.A., Mendarozqueta, N. & Mon-Williams, M. (2004). When two eyes are better than one in prehension: Monocular viewing and end-point variance. Experimental Brain Research 158, 317–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loomis, J., McBeall, A., Macuga, K., Kelly, J. & Smith, R. (2006). Visual control of action without retinal optic flow. Psychological Science 17, 214–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marotta, J.J. & Goodale, M.A. (1998). The role of learned pictorial cues in the programming and control of grasping. Experimental Brain Research 121, 465–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKee, S.P., Levi, D.M. & Bowne, S.F. (1990). The imprecision of stereopsis. Vision Research 30, 1763–1779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patla, A.E., Niechwiej, E., Racco, V. & Goodale, M.A. (2002). Understanding the contribution of binocular vision to the control of adaptive locomotion. Experimental Brain Research 142, 551–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patla, A.E. & Vickers, J.N. (1997). Where and when do we look as we approach and step over an obstacle in the travel path? Neuroreport 8, 3661–3665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothkopf, C.A., Ballard, D.H. & Hayhoe, M.M. (2007). Task and context determine where you look. Journal of Vision 7, Article 16, 11–20.Google Scholar
Servos, P., Goodale, M.A. & Jakobson, L.S. (1992). The role of binocular vision in prehension: A kinematic analysis. Vision Research 32, 1513–1521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watt, S.J. & Bradshaw, M.F. (2003). The visual control of reaching and grasping: Binocular disparity and motion parallax. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 29, 404–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed