Distances on hills look farther than distances on flat ground: Evidence from converging measures

Distances on hills are judged as farther than when the same distance is presented on the flat ground. The hypothesized reason for this difference is because perception is influenced by the increased effort required to walk up a hill than to walk the same distance on flat ground. Alternatively, distances presented up a hill might be judged as farther for other, nonperceptual reasons such as bias from demand characteristics. To test whether distances on hills are perceived as farther or are merely judged as farther, we used a variety of measures, including visual matching and blindwalking tasks, and found similar effects across all measures. This convergence is consistent with a perceptual explanation. Second, we mined our data with the goal of making recommendations for future research on this paradigm. Although all of the perceptual measures used showed similar effects, visual matching was the only measure that had good intrasubject reliability. We recommend that future research on this action-specific effect could use any measure unless the research is geared towards individual differences, in which case, only the visual matching measure of perceived distance should be used.     

Human and machine: Evaluating whether action automation influences visual perception

The action-specific account of perception suggests that our perceptual system is influenced by information about our ability to act in our environment and, thus, affects our perception. However, the specific information about action that is influential for perception is still largely unknown. For example, if a goal is achieved through automation rather than action, is perception influenced because the goal was achieved or is perception immune because the act was automated rather than performed by the observer? In four experiments, we examined whether automating a paddle to block a moving ball in a computer game similar to Pong affects perception of the ball’s speed. Results indicate that the automation used here did not affect speed perception of the target. Whereas tools such as reach-extending sticks and various-sized paddles are both incorporated into one’s body schema and also influence spatial perception, automation, our results imply that automation is not incorporated into one’s body schema and does not affect spatial perception. The dissociation in how the mind treats tools versus automation could have several implications as automation becomes more prevalent in daily life.