Do Individual Differences and Aging Effects in the Estimation of Geographical Slant Reflect Cognitive or Perceptual Effects?

Dean, Abigail M.; Oh, Jaehyun; Thomson, C. J.; Norris, Catherine J.; Durgin, Frank H.

doi:10.1177/2041669516658665

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bhalla and Proffitt ( 1999 ), for example, showed that participants who wore a heavy backpack reported a hill as steeper than those who did not. These results have been contested and interpreted as effects of experimental demand characteristics (Dean et al 2016 ; Durgin et al 2009 , 2012 ; Firestone 2013 ; Firestone and Scholl 2014 ). However, it has been shown that effort influences the peripersonal space representation and motor imagery using paradigms where the experimental hypotheses were, possibly, less transparent (Decety et al 1989 ; Lourenco and Longo 2009 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action ability modulates time-to-collision judgments

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time-to-collision (TTC) underestimation has been interpreted as an adaptive response that allows observers to have more time to engage in a defensive behaviour. This bias seems, therefore, strongly linked to action preparation. There is evidence that the observer’s physical fitness modulates the underestimation effect so that people who need more time to react (i.e. those with less physical fitness) show a stronger underestimation effect. Here we investigated whether this bias is influenced by the momentary action capability of the observers. In the first experiment, participants estimated the time-to-collision of threatening or non-threatening stimuli while being mildly immobilized (with a chin rest) or while standing freely. Having reduced the possibility of movement led participants to show more underestimation of the approaching stimuli. However, this effect was not stronger for threatening relative to non-threatening stimuli. The effect of the action capability found in the first experiment could be interpreted as an expansion of peripersonal space (PPS). In the second experiment, we thus investigated the generality of this effect using an established paradigm to measure the size of peripersonal space. Participants bisected lines from different distances while in the chin rest or standing freely. The results replicated the classic left-to-right gradient in lateral spatial attention with increasing viewing distance, but no effect of immobilization was found. The manipulation of the momentary action capability of the observers influenced the participants’ performance in the TTC task but not in the line bisection task. These results are discussed in relation to the different functions of PPS.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action ability modulates time-to-collision judgments

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our current efforts within this area are promising (Jackson & Kizer, 2016). Variability within the population is an important quality that makes these distance illusions especially fit to test individual differences in perception, despite relative invariance between populations (see also Dean, Thomson, Norris, & Durgin, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolved navigation illusion provides universal human perception measure

Jackson

García

2017

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to replicate an experiment across any scientific discipline rests on the assumption that different experimenters are capable of perceiving the same methods and outcomes. However, the large individual differences in experimenters' visual perception undermine this tenet of the scientific process. Further, common devices for measuring similarity in perceptual capacity do not replicate across human groups. Here, we used evolved navigation theory to predict a universal way to measure human perceptual capacity via a distance illusion. We then compared this descent illusion across groups that we selected specifically for their extreme differences: adults in the United States and a group of indigenous Ixil Maya in Guatemala. The descent illusion was indistinguishable across samples. This illusion is among a growing group of evolved illusions capable of comparing subjective human perception across individuals.

show abstract

“…These same demand effects seem to also explain the finding of Proffitt et al (1995) that joggers verbally estimated hills to be steeper after an exhausting run compared with before going on the exhausting run (Durgin, Hajnal, Li, Tonge, & Stigliani, 2011). Other work has also shown that there is no difference in verbal estimates of hills and textured surfaces between older and younger adults (Dean et al, 2016; Norman et al, 2009). Finally, work shows that increasing physiological potential does not lead to lower estimates of the steepness of stairs and escalators compared with hills as the physiological potential or effort hypothesis predicts (Shaffer & Flint, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…While the aforementioned work shows evidence for an inverse relationship between physiological potential and verbal estimates of slant, other empirical evidence shows no relationship between the two and strong theoretical arguments as to why there is not or should not be a relationship between the two (Dean, Oh, Thomson, Norris, & Durgin, 2016; Durgin et al, 2009; Durgin, Klein, Spiegel, Strawser, & Williams, 2012; Firestone, 2013, 2016; Firestone & Scholl, 2016; Norman, Crabtree, Bartholomew, & Ferrell, 2009; Shaffer & Flint, 2011; Shaffer, McManama, Swank, & Durgin, 2013)—for a thorough review of all the work supporting and contradicting the effects of physiological potential as well as other top-down effects on perceived slant and distance, see Firestone and Scholl (2016). To many people, if you give a verbal estimate of hill steepness, that is generally considered the perceived steepness of the hill/surface.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulation of expended effort and intent does not affect estimates of slant or distance.

Shaffer¹,

Greer

Schaffer

2019

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that people overestimate the orientation of both geographical and man-made sloped surfaces by between 5°-20°. More recently, work has shown that when people are encumbered by wearing a heavy backpack they overestimate hills and distances even more than a group not wearing heavy backpacks; however, the backpack manipulation has since been shown to be a demand effect-that is, being encumbered does not affect perception-it only biases those people influenced by it to give estimates the experimenters are seeking. Here we first show that expended effort and intent have never actually been manipulated between subjects in any of the work on steepness estimates, and expended effort has never been explicitly manipulated between subjects for distance estimates. When they are, they do not affect steepness or distance estimates. Our work is the first to experimentally manipulate effort and intent, to do this between subjects, while controlling for demand characteristics and checking to see whether the effort manipulation was effective. The experimental manipulation of effort and especially intent may be of benefit to parsing out perceptual effects from more cognitive or postperceptual processes in future work. Public Significance StatementThis study investigated whether our perception of slant and distance are infiltrated by top-down influences or encapsulated from them. We directly manipulated effort (being pushed or pushing themselves) and intent (whether they thought they would go up the hill or not) using a wheelchair. We found no differences in steepness or distance estimates between effort or intent conditions. This work is the first to manipulate effort and intent directly between subjects, while controlling for experimental demand, and shows perception of steepness and distance are stable in the face of various physical and cognitive states of the observer.

show abstract

Do Individual Differences and Aging Effects in the Estimation of Geographical Slant Reflect Cognitive or Perceptual Effects?

Cited by 5 publications

References 42 publications

Action ability modulates time-to-collision judgments

Action ability modulates time-to-collision judgments

Evolved navigation illusion provides universal human perception measure

Manipulation of expended effort and intent does not affect estimates of slant or distance.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About