Evaluation of response methods for the localization of nearby objects

Air Force Research Laboratory, 2610 Seventh Street, 45433-7901 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH
Attention Perception & Psychophysics (Impact Factor: 1.97). 04/2012; 62(1):48-65. DOI: 10.3758/BF03212060

ABSTRACT Four response methods for indicating the perceived locations of nearby objects were evaluated: the direct-location (DL) method,
where a response pointer is moved directly to the perceived location of the target; the large-head (LH) and small-head (SH)
methods, where the pointer is moved to the target location relative to a full-scale or half-scale manikin head; and the verbal
report (VR) method, where the spherical coordinates of the target location are indicated verbally. Measurements with a visual
target indicated that the DL method was relatively unbiased and considerably more accurate than the other methods, which were
all roughly equivalent. Correcting for bias improved accuracy in the LH, SH, and VR responses, but not to the level of the
uncorrected DL responses. Replacing the visual target with an acoustic stimulus approximately doubled the errors with the
DL response but indicated similar performance in the front and rear hemispheres. The results suggest that DL is the most appropriate
response method for close-range localization experiments.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three experiments tested whether geometric biases--biases away from perceived reference axes--reported in spatial recall tasks with pointing responses generalized to a recognition task that required a verbal response. Seven-year-olds and adults remembered the location of a dot within a rectangle and then either reproduced its location or verbally selected a matching choice dot from a set of colored options. Results demonstrated that geometric biases generalized to verbal responses; however, the spatial span of the choice set influenced performance as well. These data suggest that the same spatial memory process gives rise to both response types in this task. Simulations of a dynamic field model buttress this claim. More generally, these results challenge accounts that posit separate spatial systems for motor and verbal responses.
    Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance 05/2006; 32(2):473-90. · 3.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study addresses the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic spatial representations. In three experiments we probe spatial language and spatial memory at the same time points in the task sequence. Experiments 1 and 2 show analogous delay-dependent biases in spatial language and spatial memory. Experiment 3 extends this correspondence, showing that additional perceptual structure along the vertical axis reduces delay-dependent effects in both tasks. These results indicate that linguistic and non-linguistic spatial systems depend on shared underlying representational processes. In addition, we also address how these delay-dependent biases can arise within a single theoretical framework without positing differing prototypes for linguistic and non-linguistic spatial systems.
    Psychological Research 10/2009; 74(3):337-51. · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the psychophysical phenomenon visual bias, an accurately localized irrelevant signal, such as a light, impairs localization of a spatially discrepant target, such as a sound, when the two stimuli are perceived as unified. Many studies have demonstrated visual bias in azimuth, but none have tested directly or found this effect in depth. The current study was able to produce over 90% bias in azimuth and somewhat less (83%) bias in depth. A maximum likelihood estimate can predict bias by the variance in the localization of each unimodal signal in each dimension in space.
    Experimental Brain Research 08/2011; 214(3):403-14. · 2.22 Impact Factor


Available from