Heading based upon optic flow variables has previously been implicated in steering curved paths toward a stationary target (e.g., Fajen & Warren,
2000). Gibson (
1950,
1958) first proposed the solution that locomotor behaviors could be carried out on the basis of optic flow information. Optic flow has been defined as the changing angular positions of environmental points caused by any relative movement between the observer and the environment. While some researchers have followed in Gibson's footsteps, heralding optic flow as the dominant cue for locomotion (Fajen & Warren,
2000; Li & Chen,
2010; Warren,
1998; Warren, Kay, Zosh, Duchon & Zahuc,
2001; Zhao & Warren,
2015), others have disputed the privileged status of optic flow as a determinant in the visual control of locomotion (Beall & Loomis,
1996; Loomis & Beall,
1998; Loomis & Beall,
2004; Loomis, Beall, Macuga, Kelly, & Smith,
2006; Macuga, Loomis, Beall, & Kelly,
2006; Rushton, Harris, Lloyd & Wann,
1998; Salvucci & Gray,
2004; Wann & Land,
2000). One proposed alternative to the heading-based optic flow strategy is the active-gaze-based strategy, developed by Wann and colleagues (Wann & Swapp,
2000; Wilkie, Kountouriotis, Merat, & Wann,
2010; Wilkie & Wann,
2002,
2003,
2006; Wilkie, Wann, & Allison,
2008), whereby one can fixate the intended path, judge the steering error based upon the curvature of ground element trajectories, and then reorient the ground trajectory toward the target. Thus, the steering of curved paths can be executed without having to recover translational heading from optic flow. However, when others have compared these two approaches in paradigms that examined perceived future path judgments, they found evidence in favor of a heading-based optic flow strategy (Li & Cheng,
2011; Saunders & Ma,
2011). It is possible that the tasks of steering toward a target or making perceptual judgments may be guided by different sources of information than the active steering of curving paths. In fact, Kountouriotis & Wilkie
(2011) have revealed differences between heading judgments and active steering under degraded visual conditions. Another proposed gaze-based alternative was based on the discovery that drivers often direct their eyes to the tangent point when steering curving roads (Land & Lee,
1994). Boer (
1996) presented a tangent point-oriented model that uses distance to the tangent point and heading relative to the tangent vector to control steering. For this model, the driver must identify and track the tangent point. However, more recent work questions the generality of the tangent point strategy, and suggests that drivers fixate and use their future path instead to steer curving paths (Itkonen, Pekkanen, & Lappi,
2015; Lappi,
2014; Lappi, Lehtonen, Pekkanen, & Iktonen,
2013). Finally, several prominent driver steering models have been based on far and near road regions (Donges,
1978; Kountouriotis, Floyd, Gardner, Merat, & Wilkie,
2012; Salvucci & Gray,
2004), with the far region used for predictive control and the near region used for feedback control. However, the quality of the visual input may determine how the information from these regions is combined (Frissen & Mars,
2014). As such, an important and unresolved question is what visual information guides the steering of curving paths. Furthermore, none of the aforementioned studies have addressed or attempted to explain steering behavior in the absence of continuous visual feedback.