Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expectation affects verbal judgments but not reaches to visually perceived egocentric distances

  • Brief Reports
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two response measures for reporting visually perceived egocentric distances—verbal judgments and blind manual reaches—were compared using a within-trial methodology. The expected range of possible target distances was manipulated by instructing the subjects that the targets would be between .50 and 1.00 of their maximum arm reach in one session and between .25 and .90 in another session. The actual range of target distances was always .50–.90. Verbal responses varied as a function of the range of expected distances, whereas simultaneous reaches remained unaffected. These results suggest that verbal responses are subject to a cognitive influence that does not affect actions. It is suggested that action responses are indicative of absolute perception, whereas cognitive responses may reflect only relative perception. The results also indicate that the dependant variable utilized for the study of depth perception will influence the obtained results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aglioti, S., DeSousa, J. F. X., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5, 679–685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, B. (1991). Complementary cognitive and motor image processing. In G. Obrecht & L. W. Stark (Eds.), Presbyopia research: From molecular biology to visual adaptation (pp. 189–198). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, B., Gemmer, A., Forsman, T., & Huemer, V. (2000). Processing spatial information in the sensorimotor branch of the visual system. Vision Research, 40, 3539–3552.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, B., Kirch, M., & Sperling, A. (1981). Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 336–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, D. P., Dijkerman, H. C., & Milner, A. D. (1998). Perception and action in depth. Consciousness & Cognition, 7, 438–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dassonville, P., Bridgeman, B., Bala, K. P., Theim, P., & Sampanes, A. (2004). The induced Roelofs effect: Two visual systems or the shift of a single reference frame? Vision Research, 44, 603–611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. M. (1977). Effect of distance information and range on two indices of visually perceived distance. Perception, 6, 449–460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. M. (1985). Binocular distance perception: Egocentric distance tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz, V. H., Fahle, M., Bülthoff, H. H., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2001). Effects of visual illusions on grasping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 1124–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, S. (2004). Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 27, 3–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1968). The measurement of perceived size and distance. In W. D. Neff (Ed.), Contributions to sensory physiology (Vol. 3, pp. 125–148). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1981). The role of suggested size in distance responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1993). The analysis of perceived space. In S. C. Masin (Ed.), Foundations of perceptual theory (pp. 113–182). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C., & Da Silva, J. A. (1987). A two-process theory of the response to size and distance. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 220–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heft, H. (1993). A methodological note on overestimates of reaching distance: Distinguishing between perceptual and analytical judgments. Ecological Psychology, 5, 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Y., & Goodale, M. A. (2000). Grasping after a delay shifts sizescaling from absolute to relative metrics. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 856–868.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. R., & Shaw, A. (2000). The Ponzo illusion affects grip-force but not grip-aperture scaling during prehension movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 418–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., & Matin, L. (2005). Two wrongs make a right: Linear increase of accuracy of visually-guided manual pointing, reaching, and height matching with increase in hand-to-body distance. Vision Research, 45, 533–550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mon-Williams, M., & Tresilian, J. R. (1999). The size—distance paradox is a cognitive phenomenon. Experimental Brain Research, 126, 578–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagano, C. C., & Bingham, G. P. (1998). Comparing measures of monocular distance perception: Verbal and reaching errors are not correlated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1037–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagano, C. C., Grutzmacher, R. P., & Jenkins, J. C. (2001). Comparing verbal and reaching responses to visually perceived egocentric distances. Ecological Psychology, 13, 197–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavani, F., Boscagli, I., Benvenuti, F., Rabuffetti, M., & Farnè, A. (1999). Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion? Experimental Brain Research, 127, 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perenin, M. T., & Rossetti, Y. (1996). Grasping without form discrimination in a hemianopic field. NeuroReport, 7, 793–797.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Performance, 23, 72–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Predebon, J., & Woolley, J. S. (1994). The familiar-size cue to depth under reduced-cue viewing conditions. Perception, 23, 1301–1312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Proffitt, D. R., Bhalla, M., Gossweiler, R., & Midgett, J. (1995). Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossetti, Y., Pisella, L., & Vighetto, A. (2003). Optic ataxia revisited: Visually guided action versus immediate visiomotor control. Experimental Brain Research, 153, 171–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets, J. B. J., & Brenner, E. (1995). Perception and action are based on the same visual information: Distinction between position and velocity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishton, P. M., Rea, J. G., Cutting, J. E., & Nuñez, L. N. (1999). Comparing effects of the horizontal-vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: Relative versus absolute, not perception versus action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1659–1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R. F. (2004). Action, verbal response and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 94, 185–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, D. A., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. Spatial Vision, 16, 243–254.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. D., Bingham, G. P., & Craig, J. C. (2003). Proprioceptive perception of phase variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 1179–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Clemson University, 418 Brackett Hall, 29634-1355, Clemson, SC

    Christopher C. Pagano & Robert W. Isenhower

Authors
  1. Christopher C. Pagano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert W. Isenhower
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher C. Pagano.

Additional information

This work was supported by the Clemson University Research Grant Committee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pagano, C.C., Isenhower, R.W. Expectation affects verbal judgments but not reaches to visually perceived egocentric distances. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 437–442 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.437

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.437

Keywords

Search

Navigation