Learning and Exposure Affect Environmental Perception Less than Evolutionary Navigation Costs

Abstract

Most behaviors are conditional upon successful navigation of the environment, which depends upon distance perception learned over repeated trials. Unfortunately, we understand little about how learning affects distance perception–especially in the most common human navigational scenario, that of adult navigation in familiar environments. Further, dominant theories predict mutually exclusive effects of learning on distance perception, especially when the risks or costs of navigation differ. We tested these competing predictions in four experiments in which we also presented evolutionarily relevant navigation costs. Methods included within- and between-subjects comparisons and longitudinal designs in laboratory and real-world settings. Data suggested that adult distance estimation rapidly reflects evolutionarily relevant navigation costs and repeated exposure does little to change this. Human distance perception may have evolved to reflect navigation costs quickly and reliably in order to provide a stable signal to other behaviors and with little regard for objective accuracy.

Evolved navigation theory and the plateau illusion

“…Data suggest that the magnitude of this effect may have depended upon the clarity of the falling risks, but did not depend upon the estimation method or particular environment tested here. These data support the findings of previous ENT research (Jackson, 2005(Jackson, , 2009Jackson & Cormack, 2006, 2007, 2008Jackson & Willey, 2011), have been replicated in additional investigations (Jackson, Willey, & Cormack, 2013), and may suggest one of the only known underestimations in realworld human vision: that of underestimating the distance facing away from the edge of a cliff or steep slope. These data identify a basic, ubiquitous phenomenon in navigation and perception that was unknown prior to this work.…”

“…Falling is dangerous and often produces injuries and mortality that preclude the ability to learn the causes of falling. Indeed, adult distance perception accuracy does not improve upon repeated exposure (Jackson, Willey, & Cormack, 2013).…”

“…Such a system can arise without active processing of falling risk, which is supported in numerous studies where observers overestimate surfaces that would pose a falling risk if navigated, even when the observer has no intention of navigating the surface (Jackson, 2005(Jackson, , 2009Jackson & Cormack, 2006, 2007, 2008Jackson & Willey, 2011;Jackson, Willey, & Cormack, 2013). Compared to the active approaches above, this ENT interpretation of embodiment has greater predictive power both across behaviors (within a species) and across species.…”

“…The concrete stairs located at this site were a primary architectural feature of campus and they occupied the far more prominent of two campus entrances. The average student navigated these stairs approximately six times per week (as reported in Jackson, Willey, & Cormack, 2013). The stair angle measured roughly 29°, with the length (hypotenuse) extending 7.11 m down to a small landing and then extending roughly the same distance again to the ground (14 m total).…”

Slope climbing challenges, fear of heights, anxiety and time of the day

“…Human studies suggest that vertical distances are overestimated when looking down from the top [38,[70][71][72], and this overestimation of distance is associated with fear of heights [71,73]. The falling cost from downward slope would appear much higher than from upward slopes [38][39]43].…”