Does grasping capacity influence object size estimates? It depends on the context
Tóm tắt
Linkenauger, Witt, and Proffitt (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1432–1441, 2011, Experiment 2) reported that right-handers estimated objects as smaller if they intended to grasp them in their right rather than their left hand. Based on the action-specific account, they argued that this scaling effect occurred because participants believed their right hand could grasp larger objects. However, Collier and Lawson (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(4), 749–769, 2017) failed to replicate this effect. Here, we investigated whether this discrepancy in results arose from demand characteristics. We investigated two forms of demand characteristics: altering responses following conscious hypothesis guessing (Experiments 1 and 2), and subtle influences of the experimental context (Experiment 3). We found no scaling effects when participants were given instructions which implied the expected outcome of the experiment (Experiment 1), but they were obtained when we used unrealistically explicit instructions which gave the exact prediction made by the action-specific account (Experiment 2). Scaling effects were also found using a context in which grasping capacity could seem relevant for size estimation (by asking participants about the perceived graspability of an object immediately before asking about its size on every trial, as was done in Linkenauger et al., 2011; Experiment 2). These results suggest that demand characteristics due to context effects could explain the scaling effects reported in Experiment 2 of Linkenauger et al. (2011), rather than either hypothesis guessing, or, as proposed by the action-specific account, a change in the perceived size of objects.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adolph, K. E., & Berger, S. E. (2006). Motor development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol 2, 161–213) (pp. 161–213). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual–motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1076–1096.
Cañal-Bruland, R., & van der Kamp, J. (2015). Embodied perception: A proposal to reconcile affordance and spatial perception. i-Perception, 6(2), 63–66.
Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351.
Collier, E. S., & Lawson, R. (2017). It’s out of my hands! Grasping capacity may not influence perceived object size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(4), 749–769. doi:10.1037/xhp0000331
Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K., & Waymouth, S. (2009). Who is being deceived? The demand characteristics of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 964–969.
Durgin, F. H., Klein, B., Spiegel, A., Strawser, C. J., & Williams, M. (2012). The social psychology of perception experiments: Hills, backpacks, glucose, and the problem of generalizability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1582–1595.
Firestone, C. (2013). How “paternalistic” is spatial perception? Why wearing a heavy backpack doesn’t—and couldn’t—make hills look steeper. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 455–473.
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). “Top-down” effects where none should be found the El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science, 25(1), 38–46.
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2015). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–72. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15000965
Franchak, J. M., & Adolph, K. E. (2014). Gut estimates: Pregnant women adapt to changing possibilities for squeezing through doorways. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 76(2), 460–472.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Goodale, M. A., & Haffenden, A. (1998). Frames of reference for perception and action in the human visual system. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 22(2), 161–172.
Linkenauger, S. A., Witt, J. K., Stefanucci, J. K., Bakdash, J. Z., & Proffitt, D. R. (2009). The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1649–1660.
Linkenauger, S. A., Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2011). Taking a hands-on approach: Apparent grasping ability scales the perception of object size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1432–1441.
Masson, M. E. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 679–690.
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783.
Philbeck, J. W., & Witt, J. K. (2015). Action-specific influences on perception and post perceptual processes: Present controversies and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1120–1144.
Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 110–122.
Proffitt, D. R., & Linkenauger, S. A. (2013). Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 171–197). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(03), 341–365.
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.
Sörös, P., Knecht, S., Imai, T., Gürtler, S., Lütkenhöner, B., Ringelstein, E. B., & Henningsen, H. (1999). Cortical asymmetries of the human somatosensory hand representation in right-and left-handers. Neuroscience letters, 271(2), 89–92.
Stefanucci, J. K., & Geuss, M. N. (2009). Big people, little world: The body influences size perception. Perception, 38(12), 1782–1795.
Taylor-Covill, G. A., & Eves, F. F. (2016). Carrying a biological “backpack”: Quasi-experimental effects of weight status and body fat change on perceived steepness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(3), 331–338.
Walker, P. (2012). Cross-sensory correspondences and cross talk between dimensions of connotative meaning: Visual angularity is hard, high-pitched, and bright. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74(8), 1792–1809.
Walker, P., Scallon, G., & Francis, B. (2016). Cross-sensory correspondences: Heaviness is dark and low-pitched. Perception. doi:10.1177/0301006616684369
Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 683–703.
Witt, J. K. (2011). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 201–206.
Witt, J. K. (2016). Action potential influences spatial perception: Evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–23. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1184-5
Witt, J. K., & Dorsch, T. E. (2009). Kicking to bigger uprights: Field goal kicking performance influences perceived size. Perception, 38(9), 1328–1340.
Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 880–888.
Witt, J. K., & Sugovic, M. (2013). Response bias cannot explain action-specific effects: Evidence from compliant and non-compliant participants. Perception, 42(2), 138–152.
Woods, A. J., Philbeck, J. W., & Danoff, J. V. (2009). The various perceptions of distance: An alternative view of how effort affects distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(4), 1104–1117.
Zelaznik, H. N., & Forney, L. A. (2016). Action-specific judgment, not perception: Fitts’ law performance is related to estimates of target width only when participants are given a performance score. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 78(6), 1744–1754. doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1132-5