In this view, the two response measures may have somehow induced participants to weight the stimulus cues differently for each response type or differentially impacted the visual information their eyes picked up (e.g., by altering the pattern of eye movements). If two behavioral measures happen to yield different patterns of responses, this kind of model could account for such differences in one of two ways: (a) One possibility is that changes in perceived distance were responsible. If an overt indication of distance is required, the perceived distance becomes the input to processes that generate and calibrate an appropriate behavioral response. Some previous models of visual space perception (e.g., Foley, 1991 Gogel, 1990 Landy, Maloney, Johnson, & Young, 1995) have conceived of perceived distance as the result of a series of processing stages: taking a set of stimulus cues as inputs, weighting these cues according to their reliability, and then combining the resulting weighted stimulus information. This article explores some possible conceptualizations of distance and their implications for space perception research.įor researchers, perceived egocentric distance (or simply perceived distance) is a representation of the distance between oneself and an object. This illustrates that nonspecialists may have very different interpretations of “distance” and “perceived distance” than researchers do. In fact, researchers have used a variety of behavioral methods to measure perceived distance in addition to blindfolded walking and verbal reports (see Loomis, Da Silva, Philbeck, & Fukusima, 1996, and Da Silva, 1985, for reviews). Researchers, on the other hand, typically do not conceive of perceived distance as being so narrowly tied to one specific type of behavioral response. Informal discussion often reveals that people directly equate “poor distance perception” with their sense of unfamiliarity with assigning numbers to distances. g., Loomis, Da Silva, Fujita, & Fukusima, 1992 Rieser, Ashmead, Talor, & Youngquist, 1990 Thomson, 1980, among a host of others). Space perception researchers commonly encounter people who say, “You should study me-my distance perception is terrible!” In experimental settings, however, the average participant can demonstrate remarkably good distance perception by walking accurately without vision to objects initially seen at distances up to 22 m or more (e. This in no way rules out the possibility that effort influences perception in other contexts, but it does focus attention on the role of response calibration in any verbal distance estimation task. The authors’ interpretation is that in the paradigms tested, effort manipulations are prone to influencing response calibration because they encourage participants to take nonperceptual connotations of distance into account while leaving perceived distance itself unaffected. Although they did find an effect of effort on verbal reports when participants were instructed to take into account nonvisual (cognitive) factors, no effort-related effect was found under apparent- and objective-distance instruction types. The authors attempted to replicate several findings supporting this view but found no effort-related effects in a variety of conditions differing in environment, type of effort, and intention to act. Epstein, 2003) have suggested that objects appear farther away if more effort is required to act upon them (e.g., by having to throw a ball).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |