When observers perceive several objects in a space, at the same time, they should effectively perceive their own position as a viewpoint. However, little is known about observers' percepts of their own spatial location based on the visual scene information viewed from them. Previous studies indicate that two distinct visual spatial processes exist in the locomotion situation: the egocentric position perception and egocentric direction perception. Those studies examined such perceptions in information rich visual environments where much dynamic and static visual information was available. This study examined these two perceptions in information of impoverished environments, including only static lane edge information (i.e., limited information). We investigated the visual factors associated with static lane edge information that may affect these perceptions. Especially, we examined the effects of the two factors on egocentric direction and position perceptions. One is the "uprightness factor" that "far" visual information is seen at upper location than "near" visual information. The other is the "central vision factor" that observers usually look at "far" visual information using central vision (i.e., foveal vision) whereas 'near' visual information using peripheral vision. Experiment 1 examined the effect of the "uprightness factor" using normal and inverted road images. Experiment 2 examined the effect of the "central vision factor" using normal and transposed road images where the upper half of the normal image was presented under the lower half. Experiment 3 aimed to replicate the results of Experiments 1 and 2. Results showed that egocentric direction perception is interfered with image inversion or image transposition, whereas egocentric position perception is robust against these image transformations. That is, both "uprightness" and "central vision" factors are important for egocentric direction perception, but not for egocentric position perception. Therefore, the two visual spatial perceptions about observers' own viewpoints are fundamentally dissociable.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,757,736
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,898
of 29,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,631
of 387,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#254
of 460 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,824 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 460 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
