BalcetisE.ColeZ. (2014). Motivated distance perception serves action regulation. In ForgasJ. P.Harmon-JonesE. (Eds.), Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology. Motivation and its regulation: The control within (pp. 263–279). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
2.
BarM. (2003). A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 600–609.
3.
BhallaM.ProffittD. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096.
4.
ClarkA. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181–204.
5.
ColeS.BalcetisE. (2013). Sources of resources: Bioenergetic and psychoenergetic resources influence distance perception. Social Cognition, 31, 721–732.
6.
DurginF. H. (2017). Counterpoint: Distinguishing between perception and judgment of spatial layout. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 344–346.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
FirestoneC.SchollB. J. (2017). Seeing and thinking in studies of embodied “perception”: How (not) to integrate vision science and social psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 341–343.
10.
FristonK. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 127–138.
11.
FujiwaraT.CruzT. L.BohnslavJ. P.ChiappeM. E. (2017). A faithful internal representation of walking movements in theDrosophila visual system. Nature Neuroscience, 20, 72–81.
12.
LevyD. J.GlimcherP. W. (2012). The root of all value: A neural common currency for choice. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22, 1027–1038.
13.
LupyanG. (2015). Cognitive penetrability of perception in the age of prediction: Predictive systems are penetrable systems. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6, 547–569.
14.
LupyanG. (in press). Not even wrong: The “it’s just X” fallacy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
15.
O’CallahanC.KveragaK.ShineJ. M.AdamsR. B.BarM. (2017). Predictions penetrate perception: Converging insights from brain, behaviour and disorder. Consciousness and Cognition, 47, 63–74.
16.
OrneM. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.
17.
OttenM.SethA. K.PintoY. (in press). A social Bayesian brain: How social knowledge can shape visual perception. Brain and Cognition.
18.
Padoa-SchioppaC.CaiX. (2011). The orbitofrontal cortex and the computation of subjective value: Consolidated concepts and new perspectives. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1239, 130–137.
19.
ProffittD. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122.
20.
RollsE. T. (2004). The functions of the orbitofrontal cortex. Brain and Cognition, 55, 11–29.
21.
SchnallS. (2017). Social and contextual constraints on embodied perception. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 325–340.
22.
SchnallS.ZadraJ. R.ProffittD. R. (2010). Direct evidence for the economy of action: Glucose and the perception of geographical slant. Perception, 39, 464–482.
23.
ShafferD. M.McManamaE.SwankC.DurginF. H. (2013). Sugar and space? Not the case: Effects of low blood glucose on slant estimation are mediated by beliefs. i-Perception, 4, 147–155.
24.
SugovicM.TurkP.WittJ. K. (2016). Perceived distance and obesity: It’s what you weigh, not what you think. Acta Psychologica, 165, 1–8.
25.
Taylor-CovillG. A. H.EvesF. 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, 331–338.
26.
TeufelC.NanayB. (2017). How to (and how not to) think about top-down influences on visual perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 47, 17–25.
27.
ZadraJ. R.WeltmanA. L.ProffittD. R. (2016). Walkable distances are bioenergetically scaled. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 39–51.