Golf holes look larger to golfers who are playing better than others, and hills look steeper to people who are fatigued from a long run—or so claims the action-specific account of perception. According to this account, spatial perception of slant, distance, and size is influenced by the perceiver’s ability to perform actions such as walking, throwing, or grasping. This claim is based on empirical findings that observers report hills as steeper, distances as farther, and objects as smaller when they are less capable of acting on the objects. Recently, Firestone (2013) challenged the claim that these reports reflect genuine differences in perception. One argument he levied against a perceptual interpretation is that people are not aware of these perceptual differences related to action, and they should be. Here, I argue that awareness is not a necessary condition for an effect to be perceptual, as evidenced by a lack of awareness in the case of a classic visual illusion. However, to make a strong claim for genuine effects in perception, the action-specific account must specify a perceptual mechanism, and it has yet to do so.
AubertH. (1886). Die Bewegungsempfindung [The sensation of movement]. Pflüggers Archiv (European Journal of Physiology), 39, 347–370.
4.
BarsalouL. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
5.
BhallaM.ProffittD. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096.
Canal-BrulandR.ZhuF. F.Van der KampJ.MastersR. S. W. (2011). Target-directed visual attention is a prerequisite for action-specific perception. Acta Psychologica, 136, 285–289.
8.
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
9.
DurginF. H.KleinB.SpiegelA.StrawserC. J.WilliamsM. (2012). The social psychology of perception experiments: Hills, backpacks, glucose, and the problem of generalizability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1582–1595.
10.
ErnstM. O.BanksM. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429–433.
11.
FirestoneC. (2013). How “paternalistic” is spatial perception? Why wearing a heavy backpack doesn’t—and couldn’t—Make hills appear steeper. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 455–473.
12.
FleischlE. V. (1882). Physiologisch-optische Notizen, 2 [Physiologically-optical notes, 2]. Mitteilung. Sitzung Wiener Bereich der Akademie der Wissenschaften, 3, 7–25.
13.
GlennersterA.TcheangL.GilsonS. J.FitzgibbonA. W.ParkerA. J. (2006). Humans ignore motion and stereo cues in favor of a fictional stable world. Current Biology, 16, 428–432. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.01.019
14.
GoldstoneR. L. (1995). Effects of categorization on color perception. Psychological Science, 5, 298–304.
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.
16.
GrayR.NaviaJ. A.AllsopJ. (2014). Action-specific effects in aviation: What determines judged runway size?Perception, 43, 145–154.
17.
HansenT.OlkkonenM.WalterS.GegenfurtnerK. R. (2006). Memory modulates color appearance. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 1367–1368.
18.
LandE. H. (1977, December). The retinex theory of color vision. Scientific American, 237(6), 108–128.
19.
LevinD. T.BanajiM. R. (2006). Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 501–512.
20.
LinkenaugerS. A.BulthoffH. H.MohlerB. J. (2015). Virtual arm’s reach influences perceived distance but only after experience reaching. Neuropsychologia, 70, 393–401.
21.
LinkenaugerS. A.RamenzoniV.ProffittD. R. (2010). Illusory shrinkage and growth: Body-based rescaling affects the perception of size. Psychological Science, 21, 1318–1325. doi:10.1177/0956797610380700
22.
LoomisJ. M.PhilbeckJ. W. (2008). Measuring perception with spatial updating and action. In KlatzkyR. L.BehrmannM.MacWhinneyB. (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action (pp. 1–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
MruczekR. E. B.BlairC. D.CaplovitzG. P. (2014). Dynamic size illusion contrast: A relative size illusion modulated by stimulus motion and eye movements. Journal of Vision, 14(3), Article 2. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941261/
24.
NewsomeL. R. (1972). Visual angle and apparent size of objects in peripheral vision. Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 300–304.
25.
PhilbeckJ. W.LoomisJ. M. (1997). Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 72–85.
26.
ProffittD. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 110–122.
27.
ProffittD. R. (2013). An embodied approach to perception: By what units are visual perceptions scaled?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 474–483.
28.
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.
29.
ProffittD. R.StefanucciJ.BantonT.EpsteinW. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14(2), 106–112.
30.
SchnallS.ZadraJ. R.ProffittD. R. (2010). Direct evidence for the economy of action: Glucose and the perception of geographical slant. Perception, 39, 464–482.
31.
SedgwickH. (1986). Space perception. In BoffK. R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 1–57). New York, NY: Wiley.
32.
ShamsL.KamitaniY.ShimojoS. (2000). What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408, 788.
33.
SimonsD. J.AmbinderM. S. (2005). Change blindness: Theory and consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 44–48.
34.
SimonsD. J.ChabrisC. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained attentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059–1074.
35.
StefanucciJ. K.ProffittD. R. (2009). The roles of altitude and fear in the perception of height. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 424–438. doi:10.1037/a0013894
36.
StoffregenT. A.BardyB. G. (2001). On specification and the senses. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 195–261.
37.
Taylor-CovillG. A. H.EvesF. F. (2014). When what we need influences what we see: Choice of energetic replenishment is linked with perceived steepness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 915–919.
38.
Van der HoortB.EhrssonH. H. (2014). Body ownership affects visual perception of object size by rescaling the visual representation of external space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1414–1428.
39.
WittJ. K. (2011a). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 201–206. doi:10.1177/0963721411408770
40.
WittJ. K. (2011b). 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, 1148–1156. doi:10.1037/a0021933
41.
WittJ. K.ProffittD. R. (2005). See the ball, hit the ball—Apparent ball size is correlated with batting average. Psychological Science, 16, 937–938. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01640.x
42.
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
43.
WittJ. K.ProffittD. R.EpsteinW. (2004). Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception, 33, 577–590. doi:10.1068/P5090
44.
WittJ. K.ProffittD. R.EpsteinW. (2010). When and how are spatial perceptions scaled?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1153–1160. doi:10.1037/A0019947
45.
WittJ. K.RileyM. A. (2014). Discovering your inner Gibson: Reconciling action-specific and ecological approaches to perception-action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1353–1370.
WittJ. K.SugovicM. (2013b). Response bias cannot explain action-specific effects: Evidence from compliant and non-compliant participants. Perception, 42, 138–152.
48.
WittJ. K.TaylorJ. E. T.SugovicM.WixtedJ. T. (2015). Signal detection measures cannot distinguish perceptual biases from response biases. Perception, 44, 289–300.
49.
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
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.
