Distance estimation training with metric feedback may not generalize to other tasks and may even degrade performance on certain tasks. Future research must specify the conditions under which distance estimation training with metric feedback leads to performance improvements and decrements.

Distance estimation is neither universally good nor universally bad. Rather, the level of accuracy generally depends on the task being performed. When misestimation does occur, training protocols have been implemented to improve one's ability to estimate distance. Unfortunately, results are mixed with regards to the effects of distance estimation training on subsequent task performance. Consequently, reliable statements regarding the conditions within which transfer will occur are limited. As a result, the ability to apply these mixed findings to real world situations is hampered. As a solution, a transfer model was created using the Two Visual Systems Hypothesis as a foundation. Interestingly, one area of the model lacks evidence. Specifically, the effects of perceptual-motor recalibration training on subsequent ventrally-guided distance estimation tasks are unclear.

Providing trainees with metric feedback improves their metric distance estimations, but doing so also hinders certain actions. This paper describes a possible explanation for this hindrance. Based on that explanation, it was predicted that metric feedback should not hinder actions that are guided by cognitive processing, i.e., actions guided by the ventral visual system. To investigate this possibility, participants threw underhanded to specific metric distances during Pre and Post-Testing, e.g., throwing an object so that it came to rest 30 feet away. During the intervening Training, participants generated verbal distance estimates. Half received metric feedback. The results indicated that throws improved from Pre to Post-Test, but only when participants received metric feedback during Training. This outcome supports our hypothesis. Moreover, it suggests that trainees must know whether their distance estimation training should be applied to untrained tasks. Doing so may benefit certain tasks. Others, however, may suffer from it.

Telling individuals the distance between themselves and a target, right after they estimated that distance verbally, improves subsequent verbal estimations. Prior studies, however, have not tested whether or not such training improves the accuracy of perceptually guided actions, e.g., throwing an object to a target. We begin to do so here. Specifically, the present study compared throwing performance during Pre and Post-Testing for participants who either 1) generated verbal distance estimates during Training and received feedback, 2) produced verbal distance estimates during Training but did not receive feedback, or 3) performed an unrelated task during Training. An additional comparison examined whether any effects noted in earlier analyses stemmed from interactions between the Pre-Test and the feedback manipulation. Our results indicate that improving participants' ability to verbally estimate distances didn't improve (and possibly degraded) throwing accuracy. Accordingly, the benefits of verbal estimation training may only benefit subsequent verbal estimations.

No abstract