Haptic and Visual Perception of an Affordance for Upright Posture

Fitzpatrick, Paula; Carello, Claudia; Schmidt, R. C.; Corey, David M.

doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0604_2

Cited by 116 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shaffer and McManama (2015) used a remote haptic device in which the participant holds one end of a wooden dowel (~1-1.5 m in length) while exploring an~1 m inclined surface. The remote haptic task allows exploration of the surface itself, using proprioceptive feedback, and is also an action-based measure very good at affording appropriate action upon the same slanted surface on which it is used (Fitzpatrick, Carello, Schmidt, & Corey, 1994;Malek & Wagman, 2008;Regia-Corte & Wagman, 2008). The slope of the gain of estimates across six inclinations using the remote haptic task was exactly the same slope of 1.5 (ratio of estimate:actual inclination) that has been shown for verbal estimates of virtual and geographical hills, nonverbal matching estimates, and haptic estimates using a finger to explore slanted surfaces (Durgin & Li, 2012;Hajnal et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces

Shaffer

Taylor

Thomas

et al. 2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current work we investigate people's perception of their own body tilt in the pitch direction. In Experiment 1, we tilted people backward at 1 of 5 different randomly assigned angles using an inversion table. People significantly overestimated the angle at which they were tilted backward at angles from 8°to 45°. The slope of the plotted average overestimates had a gain of 1.46, fitting nicely with previously reported gains of verbal overestimates of visually perceived slant of natural outdoor geographically oriented slopes as well as man-made wooden slopes within and outside of reach in the laboratory. In Experiment 2, we showed participants a 45°line and asked them to indicate when they were positioned at that orientation. Participants again significantly overestimated the angle at which they were tilted backward. This extends work showing that a scale-expanded theory of visual space is multisensory, results in equivalent estimates for both verbal and nonverbal/nonnumeric methods, and can now be expanded to include the perceived orientation of one's own body. Keywords Slant perception . Spatial orientation . PitchFor the last two decades, a wealth of evidence shows that people overestimate the slant of both geographical and manmade slopes by between 5°and 25° (Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999;Bridgeman & Hoover, 2008;Creem & Proffitt, 1998; CreemRegehr, Gooch, Sahm, & Thompson, 2004;Durgin & Li, 2011;Durgin, Li, & Hajnal, 2010;Hajnal, Abdul-Malak, & Durgin, 2011;Proffitt, Bhalla, Gossweiler, & Midgett, 1995;Proffitt, Creem & Zosh, 2001;Shaffer & Flint, 2011;Shaffer & McManama, 2015;Stefanucci, Proffitt, Clore, & Parekh, 2008;Witt & Proffitt, 2007). Much less work has been performed on people's perception of their own body orientation in the pitch dimension, and the results of some of this work are difficult to interpret. For instance, Cohen and Larson (1974) had participants adjust the pitch of their own body every 15°from a supine position to a prone position while restrained in a motorized hospital bed. They found systematic errors of underestimation of body tilt. For instance, when asked to place themselves at 15°backward from a vertical position, they placed themselves at 29°back-ward, and when asked to place themselves at 15°forward, they placed themselves at 23°forward. These errors were consistent but smaller as they moved in either direction in 15°increments from 15°to 60°, at which point there was almost no error. Of the studies to investigate pitch perception, this seems to be the only one where people underestimate pitch. We feel there are at least two reasons for this. First, participants were moved backward in 15°increments until they were prone, and then forward in 15°increments until they were in a supine position. They did this back and forth a total of eight times (four backward, four forward). Carryover effects from each previous estimate likely affected their subsequent estimate. Second, they were giving estimates of, say, 15°backward when they were either erect (straight up and down) o...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces

Shaffer

Taylor

Thomas

et al. 2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rod receiving a yes-response 50% of the time was on average smaller in increase sequences (viz., ±66.0 cm) than in the decrease sequences (±70.5 cm). This difference is indicative of an overall enhanced contrast effect (see also, Fitzpatrick, Carello, Schmidt, & Corey, 1994). Further, Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Participants had to judge whether a slanted surface afforded upright stance when both visual and haptic information was available without actually standing on that surface. Fitzpatrick et al (1994) also found enhanced contrast and hysteresis effects at the level of the individual participants. This indicates that the dynamical model we applied to our task might be more generally applicable to different cases of simple imagination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

A non-representational approach to imagined action

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses the dynamical nature of a "representation-hungry" cognitive task involving an imagined action. In our experiment, participants were handed rods that systematically increased or decreased in length on subsequent trials. Participants were asked to judge whether or not they thought they could reach for a distant object with the hand-held rod. The results are in agreement with a dynamical model, extended from Tuller, Case, Ding, and Kelso (1994). The dynamical effects observed in this study suggest that predictive judgments regarding the possibility or impossibility of a certain action can be understood in terms of dynamically evolving basins of attraction instead of as depending on representational structures.

show abstract

“…It can be appropriated to address key aspects of behavioral transitions in affordance experiments more generally (cf. Fitzpatrick, Carello, Schmidt, & Corey, 1994;Hirose & Nishio, 2001), such as hysteresis and the distinction between (a) transitions induced biomechanically and (b) transitions induced by interacting behavioral modes. A significant motivation for modeling the particular affordance "graspable" is the frequency with which hysteretic grasping transitions are observed (Cesari & Newell, 1999Lopresti-Goodman et al, 2009;Newell, Scully, Tenenbaum, & Hardiman, 1989;Richardson et al, 2007; Kamp et al, 1998).…”

Section: The Gt Model and Affordances In Previewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Experiments covering a variety of affordances have demonstrated that the shift from one mode of behavior to another exhibits features typical of a self-organized dynamic system (Fitzpatrick et al, 1994;Hirose & Nishio, 2001;Lopresti-Goodman et al, 2009;Richardson et al, 2007; Kamp et al, 1998), where stable macroscopic patterns of behavior emerge from the lawful interactions among system components (Kelso, 1995). 1 The different types of behaviors exhibited (e.g., one-or two-handed grasps) represent the system's stable or ordered states and may be considered collective variables or order parameters (ξ) of the dynamic system.…”

Section: The Gt Model and Affordances In Previewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral dynamics of the affordance “graspable”

Lopresti-Goodman

Turvey

Frank

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On a daily basis, one perceives whether an object affords grasping with one hand or with both hands. In experiments in which differently sized objects of a fixed type have been presented, the transition from using one manual mode to the other has depended on both the ratio of object size to hand span and the presentation sequence-that is, size increasing versus decreasing. The transitions and their observed hysteresis (i.e., a transition ratio larger for the increasing sequence) can be accommodated by the order parameter dynamics typifying self-organizing systems. Here, we show that hysteresis magnitude depends on (a) the interaction between the attractors (one hand vs. two hands) and (b) the strength of the two-hands attractor. Through modeling and experimental results, we extend the investigation of affordance perception within dynamical-systems theory.

show abstract

Haptic and Visual Perception of an Affordance for Upright Posture

Cited by 116 publications

References 39 publications

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces

A non-representational approach to imagined action

Behavioral dynamics of the affordance “graspable”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About