Manual anchoring biases in slant estimation affect matches even for near surfaces

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.

Do Individual Differences and Aging Effects in the Estimation of Geographical Slant Reflect Cognitive or Perceptual Effects?

Several individual differences including age have been suggested to affect the perception of slant. A cross-sectional study of outdoor hill estimation (N = 106) was analyzed using individual difference measures of age, experiential knowledge, fitness, personality traits, and sex. Of particular note, it was found that for participants who reported any experiential knowledge about slant, estimates decreased (i.e., became more accurate) as conscientiousness increased, suggesting that more conscientious individuals were more deliberate about taking their experiential knowledge (rather than perception) into account. Effects of fitness were limited to those without experiential knowledge, suggesting that they, too, may be cognitive rather than perceptual. The observed effects of age, which tended to produce lower, more accurate estimates of hill slant, provide more evidence that older adults do not see hills as steeper. The main effect of age was to lower slant estimates; such effects may be due to implicit experiential knowledge acquired over a lifetime. The results indicate the impact of cognitive, rather than perceptual factors on individual differences in slant estimation.