The uphill battle for action-specific perception
- 38 Downloads
The action-specific account of perception states that a perceiver’s ability to act influences the perception of the environment. For example, participants tend to perceive distances as farther when presented up hills than on the flat ground. This tendency is known as the distance-on-hill effect. However, there is debate as to whether these types of effects are truly perceptual. Critics of the action-specific account of perception claim that the effects could be due to participants guessing the hypothesis and trying to comply with the experimental demands. The present study aims to explore the distance-on-hill effect and determine whether it is truly perceptual or whether past results were due to response bias. Participants judged the relative distance to targets on a hill and the flat ground. We found the distance-on-hill effect in virtual reality using a visual matching task. The distance-on-hill effect persisted even when participants were given explicit feedback about their estimates. We also found that the effect went away, as predicted by a perceptual explanation, when participants had to match the distance between two cones that were both on hills. These results offer important steps toward the painstaking task of determining whether action’s effect on perception is truly perceptual.
KeywordsPerception and action Scene Perception Embodied perception
Data, scripts, and supplementary materials available at https://osf.io/ua6vn/. This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (BCS-1632222 and BCS-1348916 to J.K.W.).
- Aarts, A. A., Anderson, J. E., Anderson, C. J., Attridge, P. R., Attwood, A., Axt, J., ... Zuni, K. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
- 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.Google Scholar
- Fajen, B. R., & Phillips, F. (2012). Spatial perception and action. In D. A. Waller & L. Nadel (Eds.), Handbook of spatial cognition (Ch. 3). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15000965
- Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., & Wilson, T. D. (2016). Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science” Science, 351(6277). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad7243
- 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), 72–85.Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.Google Scholar
- Thompson, W. B., Willemsen, P., Gooch, A. A., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Loomis, J. M., & Beall, A. C. (2004). Does the quality of the computer graphics matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments? Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(5), 560–571. https://doi.org/10.1162/1054746042545292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Witt, J. K., Tenhundfeld, N. L., & Tymoski, M. J. (2017). Is there a chastity belt on perception? Psychological Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617730892