What you see and what you are told: an action-specific effect that is unaffected by explicit feedback
A critical question for theories of spatial vision concerns the nature of the inputs to perception. The action-specific account asserts that information related to action, specifically a perceiver’s ability to perform the intended action, is one of these sources of information. This claim challenges assumptions about the mind in general and perception in particular, and not surprisingly, has been met with much resistance. Alternative explanations include that these effects are due to response bias, rather than genuine differences in perception. Using a paradigm in which ease to block a ball impacts estimated speed of the ball, participants were given explicit feedback about their perceptual judgements to test the response bias alternative. Despite the feedback, the action-specific effect still persisted, thus ruling out a response-bias interpretation. Coupled with other research ruling out additional alternative explanations, the current findings offer an important step towards the claim that a person’s ability to act truly influences spatial perception.
KeywordsAction-specific perception Spatial perception Response bias Feedback
We thank Lew Harvey for his help analyzing the data. This work was supported by Grants from the National Science Foundation to JKW (BCS-1348916 and BCS-1632222).
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Loomis, J. M., & Philbeck, J. W. (2008). Measuring perception with spatial updating and action. In R. L. Klatzky, M. Behrmann & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action (pp. 1–44). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Proffitt, D. R. (2008). An action-specific approach to spatial perception. In R. L. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action (pp. 179–202). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Witt, J. K. (2016a). Action potential influences spatial perception: evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.Google Scholar
- Witt, J. K. (2016b). Perception and action. In J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, fourth edition (Fourth ed., Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Witt, J. K. (2016c). Spatial biases from action. In T. Hubbard (Ed.), Spatial biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Woods, A. J., Philbeck, J. W., & Danoff, J. V. (2009). The various perceptions of distance: an alternative view of how effort affects distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 35(4), 1104–1117. doi: 10.1037/a0013622.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar