title: The art of descrying distance.
abstract: How naive can one experiment be? Imagine asking observers to judge distance -- yes, literally asking them. And in asking them, no visual evoked potentials were measured, and changes in blood flow to the occipital cortex were ignored. But serendipity occurs even to the well-prepared: One's best thought for a new experiment can prove to be one's first unbiased, uncomplicated thought.Here's a cursory review of the events: A number of observers were asked to judge distances between marked posts in a field at night. They made their judgments with the help of night vision goggles (NVG). At first the observers underestimated the distances on average. Then an experimenter began to correct the observers after each judgment. The observers' judgments of distance became accurate. On average, the observers began to estimate those distances accurately. Is this and incredible story or a difficult one?
authors.affiliation: Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: K K
authors.initials: KK
authors.lastname: Niall
mesh_terms: D000337:Aerospace Medicine; D003623:Dark Adaptation; D004215:Distance Perception; D005139:Eyeglasses; D005246:Feedback; D006801:Humans