Palm board and verbal estimates of slant reflect the same perceptual representation

Abstract

People verbally overestimate the orientation of slanted surfaces, but accurately estimate or underestimate slanted surfaces using a palm board. We demonstrate a fundamental issue that explains why the two different values typically given for palm board and verbal/visual matching estimates express similar perceptual representations of slanted surfaces. The fundamental problem in studies measuring palm board and verbal estimates is that the Bmeasure^-either (1) reproducing a verbally given angle or the orientation of a slanted surface with an unseen hand or (2) verbally or visually estimating a visually perceived surface-has always been confounded with the Bsurface^-either using (1) a palm board or (2) a hill or ramp. Although reproduction has exclusively been used with palm boards in these studies, at the same time verbal estimation or visual matching has exclusively been used with hills/ramps. In three experiments, we showed that verbally estimating palm board orientations produces overestimates by a factor of 1.5, whereas reproducing the orientation of the surface of a ramp to verbally given angles produces gains of~0.6. These values are similar to those seen for verbal overestimates of slanted surfaces, and to palm board gains for near surfaces and the relative palm-board-to-verbal gains for outdoor hills, respectively. Eliminating this confound eliminated the difference previously seen across surfaces. We discuss how and why different measures should produce different results if we overestimate slant in general and perceptually represent slant in the same way, both haptically and visually.Keywords Slant perception . Spatial orientation . Pitch For the last two decades, people have verbally overestimated the slant of visually perceived geographical, virtual, and manmade hills by between 5°and

Perceptual scale expansion: A natural design for improving the precision of motor control

“…In more recent years, a perceptual scale expansion theory has been proposed (Durgin & Li, 2011; for reviews, see also Li & Durgin, 2012, and Durgin, 2014), which can provide a quantitative explanation for most spatial biases reported in the literature (see Table 1 for a comparison between the scale expansion theory and other theories of spatial biases), such as linear compression of perceived egocentric distance (Durgin & Li, 2011; Li et al, 2011), nonlinear compression of perceived exocentric distance (Li & Durgin, 2012), foreshortening of in-depth extent relative to both vertically or horizontally oriented frontal extents (Li et al, 2011, 2013), and overestimation of both uphill and downhill slopes (Li & Durgin, 2009, 2010, 2013). Due to its excellent explanatory power, the scale expansion theory has received more and more attention over the past years (Gajewski et al, 2014; Loomis, 2014; Shaffer et al, 2016; Shaffer & McManama, 2015).…”