Previous studies have suggested that action constraints influence visual perception of distances. For instance, the greater the effort to cover a distance, the longer people perceive this distance to be. The present multilevel Bayesian meta-analysis (37 studies with 1,035 total participants) supported the existence of a small action-constraint effect on distance estimation, Hedges’s g = 0.29, 95% credible interval = [0.16, 0.47]. This effect varied slightly according to the action-constraint category (effort, weight, tool use) but not according to participants’ motor intention. Some authors have argued that such effects reflect experimental demand biases rather than genuine perceptual effects. Our meta-analysis did not allow us to dismiss this possibility, but it also did not support it. We provide field-specific conventions for interpreting action-constraint effect sizes and the minimum sample sizes required to detect them with various levels of power. We encourage researchers to help us update this meta-analysis by directly uploading their published or unpublished data to our online repository (https://osf.io/bc3wn/).
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: John Wiley.
2.
BürknerP.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1). doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01
3.
CarterE. C.SchönbrodtF. D.GervaisW. M.HilgardJ. (2019). Correcting for bias in psychology: A comparison of meta-analytic methods. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 115–144. doi:10.1177/2515245919847196
4.
CheungM. W.-L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19, 211–229. doi:10.1037/a0032968
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
CohnL. D.BeckerB. J. (2003). How meta-analysis increases statistical power. Psychological Methods, 8, 243–253. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.243
7.
CooperA. D.SterlingC. P.BaconM. P.BridgemanB. (2012). Does action affect perception or memory?Vision Research, 62, 235–240. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.04.009
8.
CostelloM. C.BloeschE. K.DavoliC. C.PantingN. D.AbramsR. A.BrockmoleJ. R. (2015). Spatial representations in older adults are not modified by action: Evidence from tool use. Psychology and Aging, 30, 656–668. doi:10.1037/pag0000029
9.
CuttingJ. E.VishtonP. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In EpsteinW.RogersS. (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (2nd ed., pp. 69–117). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
10.
DurginF. H.BairdJ. A.GreenburgM.RussellR.ShaughnessyK.WaymouthS. (2009). Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 964–969. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.964
11.
DurginF. H.RussellR. C. (2008). Demand characteristics, not effort: The role of backpacks in judging distance and geographical slope. Journal of Vision, 8(6), Article 755. doi:10.1167/8.6.755
12.
FirestoneC. (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, 455–473. doi:10.1177/1745691613489835
13.
ForresterS. E. (2015). Selecting the number of trials in experimental biomechanics studies. International Biomechanics, 2, 62–72. doi:10.1080/23335432.2015.1049296
14.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 156–168. doi:10.1177/2515245919847202
15.
GrayR. (2013). Being selective at the plate: Processing dependence between perceptual variables relates to hitting goals and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1124–1142. doi:10.1037/a0030729
16.
GronauQ. F.SingmannH.WagenmakersE.-J. (2017). bridgesampling: An R package for estimating normalizing constants. MetArXiv Preprints. doi:10.31222/osf.io/v94h6
17.
HaseltonM. G.BryantG. A.WilkeA.FrederickD. A.GalperinA.FrankenhuisW. E.MooreT. (2009). Adaptive rationality: An evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias. Social Cognition, 27, 733–763. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.733
18.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi:10.3102/10769986006002107
19.
HutchisonJ. J.LoomisJ. M. (2006). Does energy expenditure affect the perception of egocentric distance? A failure to replicate Experiment 1 of Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 9, 332–339. doi:10.1017/S1138741600006235
20.
JacksonR. E.WilleyC. R. (2011). Evolved navigation theory and horizontal visual illusions. Cognition, 119, 288–294. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.003
21.
KirschW.HerbortO.ButzM. V.KundeW. (2012). Influence of motor planning on distance perception within the peripersonal space. PLOS ONE, 7(4), Article e34880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034880
22.
KirschW.KundeW. (2013a). Visual near space is scaled to parameters of current action plans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1313–1325. doi:10.1037/a0031074
23.
KirschW.KundeW. (2013b). Moving further moves things further away in visual perception: Position-based movement planning affects distance judgments. Experimental Brain Research, 226, 431–440. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3455-y
24.
LakensD. (2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 701–710. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2023
25.
LessardD. A.LinkenaugerS. A.ProffittD. R. (2009). Look before you leap: Jumping ability affects distance perception. Perception, 38, 1863–1866. doi:10.1068/p6509
26.
LinkenaugerS. A.BülthoffH. H.MohlerB. J. (2015). Virtual arm’s reach influences perceived distances but only after experience reaching. Neuropsychologia, 70, 393–401. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.034
27.
LyonsJ. C. (2015). Unencapsulated modules and perceptual judgment. In ZeimbekisJ.RaftopoulosA. (Eds.), The cognitive penetrability of perception: New philosophical perspectives (pp. 103–122). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28.
MeagherB. R.MarshK. L. (2014). The costs of cooperation: Action-specific perception in the context of joint action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 429–444. doi:10.1037/a0033850
29.
McClellandG. H. (1997). Optimal design in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 2, 3–19. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.1.3
30.
MoellerB.ZoppkeH.FringsC. (2016). What a car does to your perception: Distance evaluations differ from within and outside of a car. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 781–788. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0954-9
31.
MoltoL.MorgadoN.GuinetE.FazioliL.HeurleyL. P.Palluel-GermainR. (2020). Motor simulation in tool-use effect on distance estimation: A replication of Witt and Proffitt (2008). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 301–306. doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01686-7
32.
MorgadoN.GentazE.GuinetE.OsiurakF.Palluel-GermainR. (2013). Within reach but not so reachable: Obstacles matter in visual perception of distances. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 462–467. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0358-z
33.
MorgadoN.Palluel-GermainR. (2016). How actions constrain the visual perception of space. In CoelloY.FischerM. H. (Eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition: Vol. 1. Perceptual and emotional embodiment (pp. 167–180). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
NalborczykL.BürknerP.-C.WilliamsD. R. (2019). Pragmatism should not be a substitute for statistical literacy: A commentary on Albers, Kiers, and Van Ravenzwaaij (2018). Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), Article 13. doi:10.1525/collabra.197
35.
OsiurakF.MorgadoN.Palluel-GermainR. (2012). Tool use and perceived distance: When unreachable becomes spontaneously reachable. Experimental Brain Research, 218, 331–339. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3036-5
36.
PetersJ. L.SuttonA. J.JonesD. R.AbramsK. R.RushtonL. (2008). Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 991–996. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
37.
PhilbeckJ. W.WittJ. K. (2015). Action-specific influences on perception and postperceptual processes: Present controversies and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 1120–1144. doi:10.1037/a0039738
38.
ProffittD. R. (2013). An embodied approach to perception: By what units are visual perceptions scaled?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 474–483. doi:10.1177/1745691613489837
39.
ProffittD. R.LinkenaugerS. A. (2013). Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In PrinzW.BeisertM.HerwigA. (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 171–198). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
ProffittD. R.StefanucciJ. K.BantonT.EpsteinW. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106–112. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01427
41.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
42.
ShimanskyY. P. (2011). State estimation bias induced by optimization under uncertainty and error cost asymmetry is likely reflected in perception. Biological Cybernetics, 104, 225–233. doi:10.1007/s00422-011-0431-0
43.
SimonsohnU.NelsonL. D.SimmonsJ. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 534–547. doi:10.1037/a0033242
44.
SparrowW. A.NewellK. M. (1998). Metabolic energy expenditure and the regulation of movement economy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 173–196. doi:10.3758/BF03212943
StanleyD. J.SpenceJ. R. (2014). Expectations for replications: Are yours realistic?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 305–318. doi:10.1177/1745691614528518
47.
StrohmetzD. B. (2008). Research artifacts and the social psychology of psychological experiments. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 861–877. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00072.x
48.
SzucsD.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2017). Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLOS Biology, 15(3), Article 2000797. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797
49.
Van den NoortgateW.López-LópezJ. A.Marín-MartínezF.Sánchez-MecaJ. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 576–594. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6
50.
WagenmakersE.-J.MarsmanM.JamilT.LyA.VerhagenJ.LoveJ.. . . MoreyR. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 35–57. doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
51.
WittJ. K. (2011). Tool use influences perceived shape and perceived parallelism, which serve as indirect measures of perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1148–56. doi:10.1037/a0021933
52.
WittJ. K.ProffittD. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1479–1492. doi:10.1037/a0010781
53.
WittJ. K.ProffittD. R.EpsteinW. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 880–888. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.880
54.
WittJ. K.SchuckD. M.TaylorJ. E. T. (2011). Action-specific effects underwater. Perception, 40, 530–537. doi:10.1068/p6910
55.
WoodsA. J.PhilbeckJ. W.DanoffJ. 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, 1104–1117. doi:10.1037/a0013622
56.
ZadraJ. R.WeltmanA. L.ProffittD. R. (2016). Walkable distances are bioenergetically scaled. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 39–51. doi:10.1037/xhp0000107
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
