Advertisement

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 76, Issue 6, pp 1752–1764 | Cite as

Hitting ability and perception of object’s size: evidence for a negative relation

  • Wladimir Kirsch
  • Elisabeth Königstein
  • Wilfried Kunde
Article

Abstract

We examined the relation between motor performance and perception of object’s size in near space. The general task was to repeatedly hit a target by means of pointing movements and to estimate target’s size. In contrast to the results of previous studies, Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 revealed a negative relation between action ability and perceived target size: Participants who hit the target relatively often and whose motor variability was relatively low judged targets to be smaller than did participants whose motor performance was relatively poor. In Experiment 3, the size judgments were made in the presence of the target before, as well as after, pointing movements. The target was judged as smaller when it was easy, rather than difficult, to hit before as well as after the movement. Altogether, these results indicate that under certain conditions, an increased action ability reduces the apparent size of the actions’ target objects.

Keywords

Embodied perception Goal-directed movements Perception and Action 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant KI 1620/1-1 awarded to W. Kirsch by the German Research Council (DFG).

References

  1. Anton-Erxleben, K., & Carrasco, M. (2013). Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: Linking behavioral and neurophysiological evidence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 188–200.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anton-Erxleben, K., Heinrich, C., & Treue, S. (2007). Attention changes perceived size of moving visual patterns. Journal of Vision, 7(11), 1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cañal-Bruland, R., & van der Kamp, J. (2009). Action goals influence action-specific perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(6), 1100–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper, A. D., Sterling, C. P., Bacon, M. P., & Bridgeman, B. (2012). Does action affect perception or memory? Vision Research, 62, 235–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitts, P. M., & Peterson, J. R. (1964). Information capacity of discrete motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(2), 103–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fortenbaugh, F. C., Prinzmetal, W., & Robertson, L. C. (2011). Rapid changes in visual-spatial attention distort object shape. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregory, R. L. (2008). Emmert’s law and the moon illusion. Spatial Vision, 21(3–5), 407–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holway, A. F., & Boring, E. G. (1941). Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirsch, W., & Kunde, W. (2013a). Moving further moves things further away in visual perception: Position-based movement planning affects distance judgment. Experimental Brain Research, 226(3), 431–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kirsch, W., & Kunde, W. (2013b). Visual near space is scaled to parameters of current action plans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 39(5), 1313–25.Google Scholar
  11. Lee, Y., Lee, S., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (2012). An archer’s perceived form scales the “hitableness” of archery targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 38(5), 1125–1131.Google Scholar
  12. Linkenauger, S. A., Witt, J. K., Stefanucci, J. K., Bakdash, J. Z., & Proffitt, D. R. (2009). The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 35(6), 1649–1660.Google Scholar
  13. Proffitt, D. R., & Linkenauger, S. A. (2013). Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In W. Prinz (Ed.), Tutorials in Action Science (pp. 171–198). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (1981). Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research (2nd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  15. Wesp, R., Cichello, P., Gracia, E. B., & Davis, K. (2004). Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(8), 1261–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Witt, J. K. (2011). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Witt, J. K., & Dorsch, T. E. (2009). Kicking to bigger uprights: Field goal kicking performance influences perceived size. Perception, 38(9), 1328–1340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2005). See the ball, hit the ball: Apparent ball size is correlated with batting average. Psychological Science, 16(12), 937–938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific Influences on Distance Perception: A Role for Motor Simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1479–1492.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Witt, J. K., Linkenauger, S. A., Bakdash, J. Z., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Putting to a bigger hole: Golf performance relates to perceived size. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(3), 581–585.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Witt, J. K., Linkenauger, S. A., & Proffitt, D. R. (2012). Get Me Out of This Slump! Visual Illusions Improve Sports Performance. Psychological Science, 23(4), 397–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wladimir Kirsch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elisabeth Königstein
    • 1
  • Wilfried Kunde
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Psychologie III der Universität WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations