Perception of passage through openings depends on the size of the body in motion
- 420 Downloads
Walkers need to modify their ongoing actions to meet the demands of everyday environments. Navigating through openings requires gait modifications if the size of the opening is too small relative to the body. Here we ask whether the spatial requirements for navigating horizontal and vertical openings differ, and, if so, whether walkers are sensitive to those requirements. To test walkers’ sensitivity to demands for gait modification, we asked participants to judge whether they could walk through horizontal openings without shoulder rotation and through vertical openings without ducking. Afterward, participants walked through the openings, so that we could determine which opening sizes elicited gait modifications. Participants turned their shoulders with more space available than the space they left themselves for ducking. Larger buffers for horizontal openings may reflect different spatial requirements created by lateral sway of the body during walking compared to vertical bounce. In addition, greater variability of turning from trial to trial compared with ducking may lead walkers to adopt a more conservative buffer to avoid errors. Verbal judgments accurately predicted whether openings required gait modifications. For horizontal openings, participants’ judgments were best predicted by the body’s dynamic abilities, not static shoulder width. The differences between horizontal and vertical openings illustrate that walkers account for the dynamic properties of walking in addition to scaling decisions to body dimensions.
KeywordsLocomotion Walking Apertures Affordances Gait modifications
This research was supported by a National Institute of Health and Human Development Grant R37-HD33486 to Karen E. Adolph and a Dean’s Undergraduate Research Fund (DURF) Grant to Emma Celano. We gratefully acknowledge Angela Char, David Comalli, and the members of the NYU Infant Action Lab for helping with data collections and providing comments on the manuscript and thank Gladys Chan for her beautiful line drawings of the apparatus.
- Adolph KE, Cole WG, Komati M, et al. (in press) How do you learn to walk? Thousands of steps and hundreds of falls per day. Psychol SciGoogle Scholar
- Berger JO (1985) Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cole WG, Chan GLY, Vereijken B, Adolph KE (under review) Perceiving affordances for different motor skills. Manuscript under reviewGoogle Scholar
- Comalli DM, Adolph KE (in prep) Infants’ gait modifications for navigating under barriers. Manuscript in preparationGoogle Scholar
- Comalli DM, Franchak JM, Char A, Adolph KE (in prep) Younger and older adults’ perception of affordances for doorways and ledges. Manuscript in preparationGoogle Scholar
- Fajen BR, Riley MA, Turvey MT (2008) Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. Int J Sports Psychol 40:79–107Google Scholar
- Franchak JM, Adolph KE (2012) What infants know and what they do: perceiving possibilities for walking through openings. Dev Psychol 48:1254–1261Google Scholar
- Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Glimcher PW (2003) Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain: the science of neuroeconomics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Murray MP, Drought AB, Kory RC (1964) Walking patterns of normal men. J Bone Joint Surg 46A:335–360Google Scholar