Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp 1165–1181 | Cite as

Distances on hills look farther than distances on flat ground: Evidence from converging measures



Distances on hills are judged as farther than when the same distance is presented on the flat ground. The hypothesized reason for this difference is because perception is influenced by the increased effort required to walk up a hill than to walk the same distance on flat ground. Alternatively, distances presented up a hill might be judged as farther for other, nonperceptual reasons such as bias from demand characteristics. To test whether distances on hills are perceived as farther or are merely judged as farther, we used a variety of measures, including visual matching and blindwalking tasks, and found similar effects across all measures. This convergence is consistent with a perceptual explanation. Second, we mined our data with the goal of making recommendations for future research on this paradigm. Although all of the perceptual measures used showed similar effects, visual matching was the only measure that had good intrasubject reliability. We recommend that future research on this action-specific effect could use any measure unless the research is geared towards individual differences, in which case, only the visual matching measure of perceived distance should be used.


Perception action Distance perception Embodied perception Reliability 


  1. Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual–motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1076.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cutting, J. E., & Vishton, P. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distance: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Perceiving space and motion (pp. 69–117). London, UK: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K., & Waymouth, S. (2009). Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 964–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Foley, J. M. (1977). Effect of distance information and range on two indices of visually perceived distance. Perception, 6(4), 449–460.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Franzen, M. D., Tishelman, A. C., Sharp, B. H., & Friedman, A. G. (1987). An investigation of the test–retest reliability of the Stroop color-word test across two intervals. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2(3), 265–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gogel, W. C. (1990). A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications. Perception & Psychophysics, 48(2), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Guettling, T. P., Park, S. Y., Kenemans, J. L., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2013). TMS of the anterior intraparietal area selectively modulates orientation change detection during action preparation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 110(1), 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heath, M., Rival, C., Westwood, D. A., & Neely, K. (2005). Time course analysis of closed- and open-loop grasping of the Müller-Lyer illusion. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37(3), 179–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lessard, D. A., Linkenauger, S. A., & Proffitt, D. R. (2009). Look before you leap: Jumping ability affects distance perception. Perception, 38(12), 1863.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Li, Z., & Durgin, F. H. (2012). Manual matching of perceived surface orientation is affected by arm posture: Evidence of calibration between proprioception and visual experience in near space. Experimental Brain Research, 216(2), 299–309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Linkenauger, S. A., Lerner, M. D., Ramenzoni, V. C., & Proffitt, D. R. (2012). A perceptual-motor deficit predicts social and communicative impairments in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Research, 5(5), 352–362. doi:10.1002/Aur.1248 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Loomis, J. M. (2016). Proposed applications of research on action-specific effects are premature. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(5), 77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loomis, J. M., & Philbeck, J. W. (2008). Measuring spatial perception with spatial updating and action. In Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, 2006, Pittsburgh, PA, US: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  17. Loomis, J. M., Da Silva, J. A., Fujita, N., & Fukusima, S. S. (1992). Visual space perception and visually directed action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 906.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. MacLennan, R. N. (1993). Interrater reliability with SPSS for Windows 5.0. The American Statistician, 47(4), 292–296.Google Scholar
  19. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pagano, C. C., & Isenhower, R. W. (2008). Expectation affects verbal judgments but not reaches to visually perceived egocentric distances. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Philbeck, J. W., & Loomis, J. M. (1997). Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(1), 72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Philbeck, J. W., & Witt, J. K. (2015). Action-specific influences on perception and post-perceptual processes: Present controversies and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 1120–1144.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 110–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Proffitt, D. R., Bhalla, M., Gossweiler, R., & Midgett, J. (1995). Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(4), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14(2), 106–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Poulton, E. C. (1979). Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude. Psychological Bulletin, 86(4), 777.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Richler, J. J., Floyd, R. J., & Gauthier, I. (2014). The Vanderbilt Holistic Face Processing Test: A short and reliable measure of holistic face processing. Journal of Vision, 14, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sinai, M. J., Ooi, T. L., & He, Z. J. (1998). Terrain influences the accurate judgement of distance. Nature, 395(6701), 497–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2009). The roles of altitude and fear in the perception of height. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(2), 424–438.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Stefanucci, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2005). Distances appear different on hills. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(6), 1052–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64(3), 153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Strauss, G. P., Allen, D. N., Jorgensen, M. L., & Cramer, S. L. (2005). Test-retest reliability of standard and emotional Stroop tasks an investigation of color-word and picture-word versions. Assessment, 12(3), 330–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sugovic, M., & Witt, J. K. (2013). An older view on distance perception: Older adults perceive walkable extents as farther. Experimental Brain Research, 226(3), 383–391.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor-Covill, G. A., & Eves, F. F. (2013). Slant perception for stairs and screens: Effects of sex and fatigue in a laboratory environment. Perception, 42(4), 459–469.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Witt, J. K. (2011). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Witt, J. K. (in press). Action Potential Influences Spatial Perception: Evidence for Genuine Top-Down Effects on Perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1184-5
  39. Witt, J. K., Kemmerer, D., Linkenauger, S. A., & Culham, J. (2010). A functional role for motor simulation in identifying tools. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1215–1219. doi:10.1177/0956797610378307 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2004). Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception, 33, 577–590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Performance and Perception, 31(5), 880.Google Scholar
  42. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2010). When and how are spatial perceptions scaled? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1153–1160. doi:10.1037/A0019947 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Witt, J. K., Sugovic, M., Tenhundfeld, N. L., & King, Z. R. (2016). An action-specific effect on perception that survives all pitfalls. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang, S. J., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Seeing and doing: Ability to act moderates orientation effects in object perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(4), 639–648.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations