Perceptual learning is a process of developing the skill to differentiate previously undifferentiated information. In this study participants learned to identify novel objects (feelies). To test the role of visual exploration, objects were viewed from either a side or a top view and displayed as either static pictures or rotating about a vertical axis, with moving objects facilitating more visual exploration. In Experiment 1, a simple object discrimination task was used. Participants reached perfect accuracy sooner in static conditions than in motion conditions, regardless of viewpoint, suggesting that although movement may have promoted greater exploratory activity, the information provided by movement did not influence object shape discrimination. Experiment 2 investigated if a functionally relevant task would necessitate the use of greater exploratory activity for perceptual learning. Participants were required to either (1) think of potential uses for the feelies, (2) think of a predetermined use, or (3) describe the object's physical appearance. Visual exploration of objects benefited learning most in the condition in which observers generated potential uses for objects themselves. The affordance prime promoted functionally relevant learning. The most efficient pattern of learning was observed when participants generated uses for moving objects viewed from the side. These findings suggest that exploratory activity facilitates perceptual learning of affordances.
AdolphK. E.KretchK. S. (2015). Gibson’s theory of perceptual learning. In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd Ed., Vol. 10, pp. 127–134). Elsevier.
2.
BakerD. H.VilidaiteG.LygoF. A.SmithA. K.FlackT. R.GouwsA. D.AndrewsT. J. (2021). Power contours: Optimising sample size and precision in experimental psychology and human neuroscience. Psychological Methods, 26(3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000337
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
BiedermanI.GerhardsteinP. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(6), 1162–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.19.6.1162
6.
BinghamG. P.LindM. (2008). Large continuous perspective transformations are necessary and sufficient for accurate perception of metric shape. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(3), 524–540. https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.3.524
7.
CavinessJ. A. (1962). The equivalence of visual and tactual stimulation for solid shape perception [Unpublished master's thesis]. Cornell University.
8.
DowellC.HajnalA.PouwW.WagmanJ. B. (2020). Visual and haptic perception of affordances of feelies. Perception, 49, 905–925. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006620946532
9.
DowellC. J.NormanJ. F.MomentJ. R.ShainL. M.NormanH. F.PhillipsF.KappersA. M. (2018). Haptic shape discrimination and interhemispheric communication. Scientific Reports, 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18691-2
10.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630
GauthierI.TarrM. J. (1997). Orientation priming of novel shapes in the context of viewpoint-dependent recognition. Perception, 26(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1068/p260051
13.
GauthierI.WilliamsP.TarrM. J.TanakaJ. (1998). Training ‘greeble’ experts: A framework for studying expert object recognition processes. Vision Research, 38(15–16), 2401–2428. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00442-2
14.
GhoseT.LiuZ. (2013). Generalization between canonical and non-canonical views in object recognition. Journal of Vision, 13(1), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.1.1
GibsonJ. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin.
19.
GibsonE. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
20.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
21.
GibsonE. J. (1988). Exploratory behavior in the development of perceiving, acting, and the acquiring of knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 39(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.000245
22.
GibsonE. J. (2003). The world is so full of a number of things: On specification and perceptual learning. Ecological Psychology, 15, 283–287. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco1504_3
23.
GibsonJ. J.GibsonE. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment?Psychological Review, 62, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048826
24.
GibsonE. J.PickA. D. (2000). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. Oxford University Press.
25.
HacquesG.KomarJ.DicksM.SeifertL. (2021). Exploring to learn and learning to explore. Psychological Research, 85(4), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01352-x
26.
HaqueA.PengB.LuoZ.AlahiA.YeungS.Fei-FeiL. (2016). Towards viewpoint invariant 3D human pose estimation. In B.LeibeJ.MatasN.SebeM.Welling (Eds.), Computer vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, proceedings, part 1 (Vol. 9905, pp. 160–177). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46448-0_10
KaplanE. L.MeierP. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53(282), 457–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452
LeeY. L.BinghamG. P. (2010). Large perspective changes yield perception of metric shape that allows accurate feedforward reaches-to-grasp and it persists after the optic flow has stopped! Experimental Brain Research, 204(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2323-2
LindM.LeeY. L.MazanowskiJ.KountouriotisG. K.BinghamG. P. (2014). Affine operations plus symmetry yield perception of metric shape with large perspective changes (≥ 45°): Data and model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033245
34.
LoS.AndrewsS. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1171), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171
35.
MacmillanN. A.KaplanH. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98(1), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.1.185
36.
MaxwellN. P.HuffM. J.HajnalA.NamiasJ. M.BlauJ. J. C.DayB.MarshK. L.MeagherB. R.Shelley-TremblayJ. F.ThomasG. F.WagmanJ. B. (2024). Affordance norms for 2825 concrete nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 56(8), 8480–8491. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02486-1
37.
NormanJ. F.BartholomewA. N.BurtonC. L. (2008). Aging preserves the ability to perceive 3D object shape from static but not deforming boundary contours. Acta Psychologica, 129, 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.06.002
38.
NormanJ. F.ClaytonA. M.NormanH. F.CrabtreeC. E. (2008). Learning to perceive differences in solid shape through vision and touch. Perception, 37(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5679
39.
NormanJ. F.DawsonT. E.RainesS. R. (2000). The perception and recognition of natural object shape from deforming and static shadows. Perception, 29(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2994
40.
NormanJ. F.NormanH. F.ClaytonA. M.LianekhammyJ.ZielkeG. (2004). The visual and haptic perception of natural object shape. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 342–351. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194883
41.
NormanJ. F.PhillipsF.HolminJ. S.NormanH. F.BeersA. M.BoswellA. M.CheesemanJ. R.StethenA. G.RonningC. (2012). Solid shape discrimination from vision and haptics: Natural objects (Capsicum annuum) and Gibson’s “feelies”. Experimental Brain Research, 222(3), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3220-7
42.
NormanJ. F.RainesS. R. (2002). The perception and discrimination of local 3-D surface structure from deforming and disparate boundary contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(7), 1145–1159. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194763
43.
NormanJ. F.ToddJ. T.PerottiV. J.TittleJ. S. (1996). The visual perception of three-dimensional length. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.1.173
44.
NormanJ. F.ToddJ. T.PhillipsF. (1995). The perception of surface orientation from multiple sources of optical information. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(5), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213268
45.
PekJ.FloraD. B. (2018). Reporting effect sizes in original psychological research: A discussion and tutorial. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000126
46.
PetrovA. A.DosherB. A.LuZ. L. (2006). Perceptual learning without feedback in non-stationary contexts: Data and model. Vision Research, 46(19), 3177–3197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.03.022
SurberT.HuffM. J.HajnalA. (2023). The affordance directive: Affordance priming facilitates object detection similar to semantic priming. Psychological Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231174393
51.
TarrM. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214412
ToddJ. T.NormanJ. F. (2003). The visual perception of 3-D shape from multiple cues: Are observers capable of perceiving metric structure?Perception & Psychophysics, 65(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194781
