1. The Effect of Object Size and Speed on Time to Collision Estimation in the Horizontal Plane Douna Montazer, Valdeep Saini, Nicole Simone, Danielle Thorpe

3. Initial Research Question  Does an object’s size have an affect on its perception of its speed…?

4. Time to Collision (TTC) Time it takes for two objects to collide TTC Estimations: person’s judgment of time to collision Previous research has been dedicated to looming objects – Object size increases (or decreases) on the retina

5. Background Literature DeLucia and Warren (1994) – Looming objects in subject’s central field of view – Results: larger objects had smaller TTC estimations

6. Sidaway et al. (1996) – Study involved – Results: TTC estimates improved with increase in the car’s velocity Background Literature

7. Marini et al. (2000) – Studied whether the final size of the looming object affected the accuracy of estimating TTC – Results: subjects rely on the size difference between two stimuli when the objects were traveling at a faster speeds However, at the slower speeds the subjects seemed to use a mental strategy to judge TTC (Tau) Background Literature

9. Purpose of Current Experiment Test the previous TTC findings within the horizontal plane (object’s size remains constant on the retina) – Examine the effects of size on TTC estimations – Examine the existing interaction between size and speed during TTC estimations

10. Introduction Conditions – 3 object sizes – 3 speeds – 3 disappearance points

11. Cognitive Bias? Generally believed that larger objects tend to move slower compared to smaller objects – Could be due to a perceived increase in weight, or perhaps the amount of effort one would need to move a larger object

12. Hypothesis When presented at the same speed, larger objects will be perceived to move slower (have longer TTC estimations) Subjects should have the best be best at TTC estimations for the smallest object at the highest speed

13. Questions Design Ideas?

14. Method Subjects – 15 subjects - 8 female and 7 male – Normal or corrected to normal vision – Subjects were naive to the experiment and our hypothesis – Age range: 19-23 years old (M=21)

15. Method Apparatus – Stimuli created in Microsoft paint and run through Presentation software – Run on 4 computers

16. Method Object speed (3 levels): 0.204, 0.324, and 0.421 pixels/msec Object size (3 levels): 1 brick, 5 bricks, 9 bricks Disappearing points (3 levels): 675, 500, or 325 pixels from barrier

17. Method 3x3x3  a total of 27 possible trial combinations Both background and objects were of the same luminance

18. Method Procedure – Subjects viewed computer screen at a distance of 75cm – The first block (27 trials) - practice and was not included in data analysis

19. Method A fixation cross appeared at the far right side of the screen Object appeared and moved towards a stationary wall on the opposite side of the screen (left side) At one of the disappearance points, both object and wall disappeared- screen turned black Subject had to press spacebar when they thought the object would have hit the wall, had it not disappeared After response, fixation cross reappeared on the right side of the screen and the next trial began

20. Demonstration

21. Method

22. After every 10 trials, subject was given a 10 second rest period There were 15 blocks within the experiment (each block containing 1 of each 27 trial combinations) Data was analysed using Excel and SPSS

23. Results When presented at the same speed, larger objects will be perceived to move slower (have longer TTC estimations) Subjects should have the best TTC estimations for the smallest object at the highest speed

24. Results 3x3x3 within subjects ANOVA Main effect of Speed – F(1.284, 28)=23.372, p<0.05

25. Results Graph insert here Speed

26. Results 3x3x3 within subjects ANOVA Main effect of Speed – F(1.284, 28)=23.372, p<0.05 Main effect of Size – F(1.821, 28)=25.547, p<0.05

27. Results Graph Insert here Size

28. Results 3x3x3 within subjects ANOVA Main effect of Speed – F(1.284, 28)=23.372, p<0.05 Main effect of Size – F(1.821, 28)=25.547, p<0.05 Interaction of Speed and Size – F(3.027, 42.379)=3.221, p=0.032

37. Question Improve on our Data Analysis – Additional Approaches

38. Discussion Performance declined as both size of the object and speed increased Overestimate distance and time regardless of speed and size > accurate for small objects at slow speeds, < accurate for large objects at fast speeds

39. Discussion Contradicts research – ↑ speed ≠ ↑ performance ↑ speed = greater differences between objects – Marini, et al. Larger objects produced the least accurate TTC estimations at each of the three speeds

40. Discussion WHY? Size – Cognitive Bias – Changing number of bricks, not just size – Stresses importance of cognitive factors

41. Discussion WHY? Speed – Working Memory – Different Mental Strategies

42. Discussion WHY? Speed x Size Interaction – Combination of the previously mentioned explanations

43. Discussion Limitations – Distance from observer to computer screen – SPSS data in pixels – Kept distance constant

44. Question What are the implications of this research?

45. Discussion Implications – Crossing the street – Police using radar guns

46. Question What are some ideas for future research in this area? How can you improve upon this research?

47. Discussion Future Research – Real-life situations – practical/familiar objects – Effect of expertise