Does Metric Feedback Hinder Actions Guided by Cognition?

Abstract

Providing trainees with metric feedback improves their metric distance estimations, but doing so also hinders certain actions. This paper describes a possible explanation for this hindrance. Based on that explanation, it was predicted that metric feedback should not hinder actions that are guided by cognitive processing, i.e., actions guided by the ventral visual system. To investigate this possibility, participants threw underhanded to specific metric distances during Pre and Post-Testing, e.g., throwing an object so that it came to rest 30 feet away. During the intervening Training, participants generated verbal distance estimates. Half received metric feedback. The results indicated that throws improved from Pre to Post-Test, but only when participants received metric feedback during Training. This outcome supports our hypothesis. Moreover, it suggests that trainees must know whether their distance estimation training should be applied to untrained tasks. Doing so may benefit certain tasks. Others, however, may suffer from it.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brunswik

(1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

DeLucia

P. R.

(1999). Critique of “Distance estimation with night vision goggles: A little feedback goes a long way.” Human Factors, 41, 507–510.

Ferris

S. H.

(1972). Improvement in absolute distance estimation underwater. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 35, 299 305.

Ferris

S. H.

(1973). Improving absolute distance estimation in clear and in turbid water. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36, 771 776.

Gibson

E. J.

Bergman

(1954). The effect of training on absolute estimation of distance over the ground. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 473 482.

Gilinsky

(1951). Perceived size and distance in visual space. Psychological Review, 58, 460 482.

Gogel

W. C.

Da Silva

J. A.

(1987). A two-process theory of the response to size and distance. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 220 38.

Hall

A. R.

Jones

K. S.

DeLucia

P. R.

Johnson

B. R.

(2006). Does distance estimation training transfer to actions? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, 2629–2633.

Hays

W. L.

(1994). Statistics (5th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

10.

Heft

(1993). A methodological note on overestimates of reaching distance: Distinguishing between perceptual and analytical judgments. Ecological Psychology, 5(3), 235 271.

11.

Jones

K. S.

DeLucia

P. R.

Hall

A. R.

Johnson

B. R.

(2006, June). Can metric feedback impair action? Paper presented at the North American meeting of the International Society for Ecological Psychology, Cincinnati, OH.

12.

Maxwell

S. E.

Delaney

H. D.

(1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

13.

Milner

A. D.

Goodale

M. A.

(1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

14.

Niall

K. K.

Reising

J. D.

Martin

E. L.

(1999). Distance estimation with night vision goggles: A little feedback goes a long way. Human Factors, 41(3), 495 506.

15.

Piaget

(1969). The mechanisms of perception. New York: Basic Books.

16.

Richardson

A. R.

Waller

(2005). The effects of feedback training on distance estimation in virtual environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1089 1108.

17.

Schmidt

Wrisberg

(2004). Motor learning and performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

18.

Waller

(1999). Factors affecting interobject distance perception in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8, 657 670.

19.

Wohlwill

J. F.

(1964). Changes in distance judgments as a function of corrected and noncorrected practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19, 403 413.