Remote haptic perception of slanted surfaces shows the same scale expansion as visual perception

EXPRESS: Perceptual scale expansion: A natural design for improving the precision of motor control

Space perception is systematically biased. Few theories of spatial bias address the possible functional advantages of mechanisms that produce spatial biases. The scale expansion hypothesis proposes that many spatial biases are due to the perceptual expansion of visual angles, which acts somewhat like a natural magnifying glass in vision. The present study examined the idea that visual expansion may improve motor precision (i.e., reduce motor variability) in movements when using closed-loop control but not when using open-loop control. Experiment 1 tested this idea in an online tracking task (closed-loop control), whereas Experiment 2 tested it in a fast-hitting task (open-loop control). The results were consistent with the hypothesis. To rule out the effect of the task difference (i.e., tracking vs. fast hitting), Experiment 3 examined the effect of visual expansion on the variability of motor performance in a line-reproduction task. The control type (closed-loop or open-loop) was manipulated by the form of visual feedback (online or offline). The results were again consistent with the present assumption. Taken together, the present data suggest that perceptual expansion in vision improves motor control precision when using closed-loop control (but not when using open-loop control), which supports the scale-expansion hypothesis. In addition, the present findings also improve our understanding of how visual error amplification affects motor control.

An anti-inertial motion bias explains people discounting inertial motion of carried objects

In this paper we propose an anti-inertial motion (AIM) bias that can explain several intuitive physics beliefs including the straight-down belief and beliefs held concerning the pendulum problem. We show how the AIM bias also explains two new beliefs that we explore - a straight-up-and-down belief as well as a straight-out/backward bias that occurs for objects traveling in one plane that are then thrown in another plane, ostensibly affording a greater opportunity for perception of canonical motion. We then show how the AIM bias in general is invariant across perceived/imagined speed of the object carrier, only altering percentages of straight-out from backward responses, and why occluding the carrier once the object is released into a second plane does not result in more veridical perception. The AIM bias serves as a simple explanation for a family of beliefs including those in the current paper as well as those shown in previous work.

Pushing people to their tipping point: Phenomenal tipping point is predicted by phenomenal vertical and intuitive beliefs

Previous work has shown that people overestimate their own body tilt by a factor of about 1.5, the same factor by which people overestimate geographical and man-made slopes. In Experiment 1 we investigated whether people can accurately identify their own and others' tipping points (TPs) - the point at which they are tilted backward and would no longer be able to return to upright - as well as their own and others' center of mass (COM) - the relative position of which is used to determine actual TP. We found that people overestimate their own and others' TP when tilted backward, estimate their own and others' COM higher than actual, and that COM estimation is unrelated to TP. In Experiment 2, we investigated people's intuitive beliefs about the TP. We also investigated the relationship between phenomenal TP and perceived vertical. Whether verbally (conceptually) estimating the TP, drawing the TP, or demonstrating the position of the TP, people believe that the TP is close to 45°. In Experiment 3, we found that anchoring influences phenomenal TP and vertical. When accounting for starting position, the TP seems to be best predicted by an intuitive belief that it is close to 45°. In Experiment 4, we show that there is no difference in phenomenal TP and vertical when being tilted about the feet or waist/hips. We discuss the findings in terms of action-perception differences found in other domains and practical implications.

Pedal and haptic estimates of slant suggest a common underlying representation

It is well known that people verbally exaggerate the slant of visually perceived geographical, virtual, and man-made hills. More recently it has been shown that haptic and verbal estimates of slant result in similar exaggerations, supporting the proprioception calibration hypothesis-that similar biases exist in both verbal estimates of visually perceived slant and proprioceptively perceived hand orientation. This seems to point to a common underlying representation of slant. However, it is unclear if and how manual proprioceptive estimates might be relevant for perception of ground surface slant or how this might translate to pedal perception of surface orientation. In the current work we tested whether pedal perception is systematically connected to a representational system shared by haptic and visual perception. We did this by having people orient their foot to four different orientations of a ramp (Experiment 1) or to a staircase (Experiment 2) and compared these to estimates made using a free hand measure as well as to verbal estimates. Our results show that verbal, haptic, and pedal measures of visually perceived surface orientation all result in similar estimates of slant and do so across different slanted surfaces. This suggests that verbal and haptic proprioceptive estimates tap into a representational system of visually perceived surface orientation that is relevant for walking up various surface orientations.

Palm board and verbal estimates of slant reflect the same perceptual representation

People verbally overestimate the orientation of slanted surfaces, but accurately estimate or underestimate slanted surfaces using a palm board. We demonstrate a fundamental issue that explains why the two different values typically given for palm board and verbal/visual matching estimates express similar perceptual representations of slanted surfaces. The fundamental problem in studies measuring palm board and verbal estimates is that the "measure"-either (1) reproducing a verbally given angle or the orientation of a slanted surface with an unseen hand or (2) verbally or visually estimating a visually perceived surface-has always been confounded with the "surface"-either using (1) a palm board or (2) a hill or ramp. Although reproduction has exclusively been used with palm boards in these studies, at the same time verbal estimation or visual matching has exclusively been used with hills/ramps. In three experiments, we showed that verbally estimating palm board orientations produces overestimates by a factor of 1.5, whereas reproducing the orientation of the surface of a ramp to verbally given angles produces gains of ~0.6. These values are similar to those seen for verbal overestimates of slanted surfaces, and to palm board gains for near surfaces and the relative palm-board-to-verbal gains for outdoor hills, respectively. Eliminating this confound eliminated the difference previously seen across surfaces. We discuss how and why different measures should produce different results if we overestimate slant in general and perceptually represent slant in the same way, both haptically and visually.

Perceived azimuth direction is exaggerated: Converging evidence from explicit and implicit measures

Recent observations suggest that perceived visual direction in the sagittal plane (angular direction in elevation, both upward and downward from eye level) is exaggerated. Foley, Ribeiro-Filho, and Da Silva's (2004) study of perceived size of exocentric ground extent implies that perceived angular direction in azimuth may also be exaggerated. In the present study, we directly examined whether perceived azimuth direction is overestimated. In Experiment 1, numeric estimates of azimuth direction (-48° to 48° relative to straight ahead) were obtained. The results showed a linear exaggeration in perceived azimuth direction with a gain of about 1.26. In Experiment 2, a perceptual extent-matching task served as an implicit measure of perceived azimuth direction. Participants matched an egocentric distance in one direction to a frontal extent in nearly the opposite direction. The angular biases implied by the matching data well replicated Foley et al.'s finding and were also fairly consistent with the azimuth bias function found in Experiment 1, although a slight overall shift was observed between the results of the two experiments. Experiment 3, in which half the observers were tilted sideways while making frontal/depth extent comparisons, suggested that the discrepancy between the results of Experiment 1 and 2 can partially be explained by a retinal horizontal vertical illusion affecting distance estimation tasks. Overall the present study provides converging evidence to suggest that the perception of azimuth direction is overestimated.