Binocular and Monocular Coincidence-Anticipation Timing Responses

{"title":"Binocular and Monocular Coincidence-Anticipation Timing Responses","authors":"","doi":"10.31707/vdr2018.4.4.p186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nCoincidence-anticipation timing (CAT) responses require individuals to determine the time at which an approaching object will arrive at (time to collision) or pass by (time to passage) the observer and to then make a response coincident with this time. Previous studies suggest that under some conditions time to collision estimates are more accurate when binocular and monocular cues are combined. The purpose of this study was to compare binocular and monocular coincidence anticipation timing responses with the Bassin Anticipation Timer, a device for testing and training CAT responses.\n\nMethods: Useable data were obtained from 20 participants. Coincidence-anticipation timing responses were determined using a Bassin Anticipation Timer over a range of approaching stimulus linear velocities of 5 to 40mph. Participants stood to the left side of the Bassin Anticipation track. The track was below eye height. The participants’ task was to push a button to coincide with arrival of the approaching stimulus at a location immediately adjacent to the participant. CAT responses were made under three randomized conditions: binocular viewing, monocular dominant eye viewing, and\nmonocular non-dominant eye viewing.\n\nResults: Signed (constant), unsigned (absolute), and variable (standard deviation) CAT response errors were determined and compared across viewing conditions at each\nstimulus velocity. There were no significant differences in CAT errors between the\nconditions at any stimulus velocity, although the differences in signed and unsigned\nerrors approached significance at 40mph. \n\nConclusions: The addition of binocular cues did not result in a reduction in coincidence anticipation timing response errors compared to the monocular viewing conditions. There were no differences in CAT response errors between the monocular dominant eye viewing and monocular non-dominant eye viewing conditions.","PeriodicalId":91423,"journal":{"name":"Vision development and rehabilitation","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision development and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31707/vdr2018.4.4.p186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background Coincidence-anticipation timing (CAT) responses require individuals to determine the time at which an approaching object will arrive at (time to collision) or pass by (time to passage) the observer and to then make a response coincident with this time. Previous studies suggest that under some conditions time to collision estimates are more accurate when binocular and monocular cues are combined. The purpose of this study was to compare binocular and monocular coincidence anticipation timing responses with the Bassin Anticipation Timer, a device for testing and training CAT responses. Methods: Useable data were obtained from 20 participants. Coincidence-anticipation timing responses were determined using a Bassin Anticipation Timer over a range of approaching stimulus linear velocities of 5 to 40mph. Participants stood to the left side of the Bassin Anticipation track. The track was below eye height. The participants’ task was to push a button to coincide with arrival of the approaching stimulus at a location immediately adjacent to the participant. CAT responses were made under three randomized conditions: binocular viewing, monocular dominant eye viewing, and monocular non-dominant eye viewing. Results: Signed (constant), unsigned (absolute), and variable (standard deviation) CAT response errors were determined and compared across viewing conditions at each stimulus velocity. There were no significant differences in CAT errors between the conditions at any stimulus velocity, although the differences in signed and unsigned errors approached significance at 40mph. Conclusions: The addition of binocular cues did not result in a reduction in coincidence anticipation timing response errors compared to the monocular viewing conditions. There were no differences in CAT response errors between the monocular dominant eye viewing and monocular non-dominant eye viewing conditions.
双眼和单眼重合-预期时间反应
背景巧合-预期时间(CAT)反应要求个体确定接近的物体到达(碰撞时间)或经过(通过时间)观察者的时间,然后做出与此时间一致的反应。先前的研究表明,在某些情况下,当双眼和单眼线索结合在一起时,对碰撞时间的估计更准确。本研究的目的是比较双眼和单眼的巧合预期时间反应与Bassin预期计时器,一个测试和训练CAT反应的装置。方法:从20名参与者中获得可用资料。在接近5到40英里/小时的刺激线速度范围内,使用Bassin预期计时器来确定巧合-预期计时反应。参与者站在Bassin expectations赛道的左侧。铁轨在视线高度以下。参与者的任务是按下一个按钮,以配合即将到来的刺激到达参与者旁边的位置。在三种随机条件下进行CAT反应:双眼观看、单目优势眼观看和单目非优势眼观看。结果:在不同的观看条件下,确定并比较了有符号(常数)、无符号(绝对)和可变(标准偏差)CAT响应误差。在任何刺激速度下,不同条件下的CAT误差没有显著差异,尽管在40英里/小时时,有符号和无符号误差的差异接近显著。结论:与单眼观察条件相比,双眼提示的增加并没有导致重合预期时间反应误差的减少。在单目优势眼和单目非优势眼观察条件下,CAT反应误差没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信