Advertisement

Comparison of two psychophysical methods across visual and haptic perception of stand-on-ability

  • Alen Hajnal
  • Catalina X. Olavarria
  • Tyler Surber
  • Joseph D. Clark
  • Jonathan K. Doyon
Original Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Recent research (Hajnal et al. in Perception 45(7):768–786, 2016) found apparent differences between haptic and visual perception of the affordance of stand-on-ability. One reason for this discrepancy might be the imprecision of the measurement method. We compared the psychophysical method of adjustment with a dynamic staircase method of stimulus presentation in an affordance task. Three groups of participants either visually inspected a flat sturdy sloped ramp, placed one foot onto the ramp occluded from view, or placed one foot on the ramp while allowed to look at it, in the visual, haptic, or multimodal condition, respectively. Each trial was presented by moving the ramp up or down until the participant perceived the action boundary, i.e., the steepest slope that still afforded upright stance. After perceptual trials, we measured the actual action boundaries by allowing participants to attempt to stand on the ramp. The action boundary was the average between the lowest false alarm and steepest hit within a 1.5° margin of difference. Visual perception was found to be equivalent with haptic perception. Perceptual and action boundaries were indistinguishable, but only when employing the more precise staircase method. The results support the postulate of equivalence among perceptual systems proposed by Gibson (The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1966), and the idea of correspondence between perception and action which is the cornerstone of affordance theory.

Notes

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding agency or grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Alen Hajnal declares that he has no conflict of interest. Catalina X. Olavarria declares that she has no conflict of interest. Tyler Surber declares that he has no conflict of interest. Joseph D. Clark declares that he has no conflict of interest. Jonathan K. Doyon declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the current studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the current studies.

References

  1. Adolph, K. E., Eppler, M. A., & Gibson, E. J. (1993). Crawling versus walking infants’ perception of affordances for locomotion over sloping surfaces. Child Development, 64(4), 1158–1174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1076–1096.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton, G. (1992). Nonvisual judgment of the crossability of path gaps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 698–713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Comalli, D. M., Franchak, J. M., Char, A., & Adolph, K. E. (2013). Ledge and wedge: Older and younger adults’ perception of possibilities for action. Experimental Brain Research, 228, 183–192.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornsweet, T. N. (1962). The staircase-method in psychophysics. The American Journal of Psychology, 75(3), 485–491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ernst, M. O., Banks, M. S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2000). Touch can change visual slant perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3(1), 69–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitzpatrick, P., Carello, C., Schmidt, R., & Corey, D. (1994). Haptic and visual perception of an affordance for upright posture. Ecological Psychology, 6(4), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franchak, J., & Adolph, K. (2014). Affordances as probabilistic functions: Implications for development, perception, and decisions for action. Ecological Psychology, 26(1–2), 109–124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Franchak, J. M., Celano, E. C., & Adolph, K. E. (2012). Perception of passage through openings depends on the size of the body in motion. Experimental Brain Research, 223(2), 301–310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Franchak, J. M., van der Zalm, D. J., & Adolph, K. E. (2010). Learning by doing: Action performance facilitates affordance perception. Vision Research, 50(24), 2758–2765.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, J. J., & Crooks, L. E. (1938). A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving. The American Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray, A., Ali, M., Gao, Y., Hedrick, J. K., & Borrelli, F. (2013). A unified approach to threat assessment and control for automotive active safety. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 14(3), 1490–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hajnal, A., Abdul-Malak, D. T., & Durgin, F. H. (2011). The perceptual experience of slope by foot and by finger. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 709–719.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hajnal, A., Wagman, J. B., Doyon, J. K., & Clark, J. D. (2016). Perception of stand-on-ability: Do geographical slants feel steeper than they look? Perception, 45(7), 768–786.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hajnal, A., Wagman, J. B., Doyon, J. K., & Clark, J. D. (2018). Is perception of stand-on-able-ness equivalent across degrees of dynamic touch? American Journal of Psychology, 131(2), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hecht, H. (2015). Beyond illusions: on the limitations of perceiving relational properties. In T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds.), OpenMIND. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group.Google Scholar
  19. Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental description. Childrens Environments Quarterly, 29–37.Google Scholar
  20. Ishak, S., Adolph, K. E., & Lin, G. C. (2008). Perceiving affordances for fitting through apertures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1501–1514.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Joh, A. S., Adolph, K. E., Narayanan, P. J., & Dietz, V. A. (2007). Gauging possibilities for action based on friction underfoot. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 1145–1157.Google Scholar
  22. Kelso, J. S. (1997). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kinsella-Shaw, J., Shaw, B., & Turvey, M. (1992). Perceiving ‘walk-on-able’ slopes. Ecological Psychology, 4(4), 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klevberg, G. L., & Anderson, D. I. (2002). Visual and haptic perception of postural affordances in children and adults. Human Movement Science, 21(2), 169–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Leek, M. R. (2001). Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(8), 1279–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lopresti-Goodman, S. M., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M., Carello, C., & Marsh, K. L. (2009). Task constraints on affordance boundaries. Motor Control, 13(1), 69–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Malek, E. A., & Wagman, J. B. (2008). Kinetic potential influences visual and remote haptic perception of affordances for standing on an inclined surface. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(12), 1813–1826.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mark, L. S. (1987). Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: A study of sitting and stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 361–370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mark, L. S., Balliett, J. A., Craver, K. D., Douglas, S. D., & Fox, T. (1990). What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance for sitting. Ecological Psychology, 2(4), 325–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 110–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Proffitt, D. R. (2013). An embodied approach to perception: By what units are visual perceptions scaled? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 474–483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Proffitt, D. R., Bhalla, M., Gossweiler, R., & Midgett, J. (1995). Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(4), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., & Baron, R. M. (2007). Judging and actualizing intrapersonal and interpersonal affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(4), 845–859.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Swanson, W. H., & Birch, E. E. (1992). Extracting thresholds from noisy psychophysical data. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 51(5), 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Treutwein, B. (1995). Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Research, 35(17), 2503–2522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. van der Kamp, J., Savelsbergh, G. J., & Davis, W. E. (1998). Body-scaled ratio as a control parameter for prehension in 5-to-9-year-old-children. Developmental Psychobiology, 33(4), 351–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagman, J. B., Dayer, A., & Hajnal, A. (2017). Heads up! Dynamic similitude for perception with an object wielded by head or hand. Experimental Psychology, 64, 184–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 683–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Warren, W. H., & Whang, S. (1987). Visual guidance of walking through apertures: Body-scaled information for affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 371–383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations