Top

Gepubliceerd in:

02-03-2017 | Original Article

What you see and what you are told: an action-specific effect that is unaffected by explicit feedback

Auteurs: Zachary R. King, Nathan L. Tenhundfeld, Jessica K. Witt

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2018

Abstract

A critical question for theories of spatial vision concerns the nature of the inputs to perception. The action-specific account asserts that information related to action, specifically a perceiver’s ability to perform the intended action, is one of these sources of information. This claim challenges assumptions about the mind in general and perception in particular, and not surprisingly, has been met with much resistance. Alternative explanations include that these effects are due to response bias, rather than genuine differences in perception. Using a paradigm in which ease to block a ball impacts estimated speed of the ball, participants were given explicit feedback about their perceptual judgements to test the response bias alternative. Despite the feedback, the action-specific effect still persisted, thus ruling out a response-bias interpretation. Coupled with other research ruling out additional alternative explanations, the current findings offer an important step towards the claim that a person’s ability to act truly influences spatial perception.

vorige artikel Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex does not enhance the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback schedules

volgende artikel Can training change attentional breadth? Failure to find transfer effects

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

An alternative method would be to look at the just-noticeable differences (JNDs). However, JNDs cannot be computed for participants whose data showed quasi-complete separation, so proportion correct was considered instead.

An exception to this is that post-events can influence perception, which is known as postdiction. Thus, it is possible that trial outcome could affect perceived ball speed. We are unaware of any techniques to separate postdictive explanations from judgment-based explanations and thus take the more conservative view that any effects of trial outcome are due to response biases or judgment-based effects rather than being genuinely perceptual. An argument that the effect of trial outcome is perceptual would be consistent with the action-specific account of perception (for extended discussion on this issue, see Witt, Tenhundfeld, & Bielak, 2017).

Aberg, K. C., Tartaglia, E. M., & Herzog, M. H. (2009). Perceptual learning with Chevrons requires a minimal number of trials, transfers to untrained directions, but does not require sleep. Vision Research, 49, 2087–2094.CrossRefPubMed

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.CrossRef

Biederman, I., & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: a case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 13, 640–645.CrossRef

Choe, C. S., Welch, R. B., Gilford, R. M., & Joula, J. F. (1975). The “ventriloquist effect”: visual dominance or response bias? Perception and Psychophysics, 18(1), 55–60.CrossRef

Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K., & Waymouth, S. (2009). Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(5), 964–969. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.964.CrossRefPubMed

Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e229. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15000965.CrossRefPubMed

Foley, J. M. (1977). Effect of distance information and range on two indices of visually perceived distance. Perception, 6(4), 449–460.CrossRefPubMed

Gogel, W. C. (1990). A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications. Perception and Psychophysics, 48(2), 105–123.CrossRefPubMed

Gray, R. (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(4), 1124–1142.CrossRefPubMed

Grove, P. M., Ashton, J., Kawachi, Y., & Sakurai, K. (2012). Auditory transients do not affect visual sensitivity in discriminating between objective streaming and bouncing events. Journal of Vision, 12(8), 1–11.CrossRef

Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.CrossRefPubMed

Karni, A., Tanne, D., Rubenstein, B. S., Askenasy, J. J., & Sagi, D. (1994). Dependence on REM sleep of overnight improvement of a perceptual skill. Science, 265(5172), 679–682.CrossRefPubMed

Kirsch, W., & Kunde, W. (2014). Impact of planned movement direction on judgments of visual locations. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78, 705–720.CrossRefPubMed

Lee, Y., Lee, S., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (2012). An archer’s perceived form scales the “hitableness” of archery targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1125–1131.CrossRefPubMed

Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Object manipulation and motion perception: evidence of an influence of action planning on visual processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 35(4), 1062–1071.CrossRefPubMed

Lippert, M., Logothetis, N. K., & Kayser, C. (2007). Improvement of visual contrast detection by a simultaneous sound. Brain Research, 1173, 102–109.CrossRefPubMed

Loomis, J. M. (2016). Proposed applications of research on action-specific effects are premature. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(1), 77–79.CrossRef

Loomis, J. M., & Philbeck, J. W. (2008). Measuring perception with spatial updating and action. In R. L. Klatzky, M. Behrmann & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action (pp. 1–44). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Musseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 861–872.CrossRefPubMed

Odgaard, E. C., Arieh, Y., & Marks, L. E. (2003). Cross-modal enhancement of perceived brightness: sensory interaction versus response bias. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 123–132.CrossRefPubMed

Philbeck, J. W., & Witt, J. K. (2015). Action-specific influences on perception and post-perceptual processes: present controversies and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1120–1144. doi:10.1037/a0039738.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Proffitt, D. R. (2008). An action-specific approach to spatial perception. In R. L. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action (pp. 179–202). New York: Psychology Press.

Proffitt, D. R., & Linkenauger, S. A. (2013). Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 171–198). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRef

Rosenthal, O., Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2009). Sound-induced flash illusion is resistant to feedback training. Brian Topography, 21, 185–192.CrossRef

Taylor, J. E. T., Witt, J. K., & Sugovic, M. (2011). When walls are no longer barriers: perception of wall height in parkour. Perception, 40(6), 757–760. doi:10.1068/P6855.CrossRefPubMed

van der Kamp, J., Withagen, R., & de Witt, M. M. (2013). Cultural and learning differences in the Judd illusion. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 75, 1027–1038.CrossRef

Wesp, R., & Gasper, J. (2012). Is size misperception of targets simply justification for poor performance? Perception, 41(8), 994–996. doi:10.1068/p7281.CrossRefPubMed

Wilson, T. D., Reinhard, D. A., Westgate, E. C., Gilbert, D. T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., & Shaked, A. (2014). Just think: the challenges of the disengaged mind. Science, 345(July 4), 75–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Witt, J. K. (2011). Action’s Effect on Perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 201–206. doi:10.1177/0963721411408770.CrossRef

Witt, J. K. (2016a). Action potential influences spatial perception: evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.

Witt, J. K. (2016b). Perception and action. In J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, fourth edition (Fourth ed., Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.

Witt, J. K. (2016c). Spatial biases from action. In T. Hubbard (Ed.), Spatial biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Witt, J. K., Linkenauger, S. A., Bakdash, J. Z., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Putting to a bigger hole: golf performance relates to perceived size. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(3), 581–585. doi:10.3758/15.3.581.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2005). See the ball, hit the ball - Apparent ball size is correlated with batting average. Psychological Science, 16(12), 937–938. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01640.x.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, J. K., Schuck, D. M., & Taylor, J. E. T. (2011). Action-specific effects underwater. Perception, 40(5), 530–537. doi:10.1068/P6910.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, J. K., & Sugovic, M. (2010). Performance and ease influence perceived speed. Perception, 39(10), 1341–1353. doi:10.1068/P6699.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, J. K., & Sugovic, M. (2012). Does ease to block a ball affect perceived ball speed? Examination of alternative hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1202–1214. doi:10.1037/a0026512.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, J. K., & Sugovic, M. (2013a). Catching ease influences perceived speed: evidence for action-specific effects from action-based measures. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 1364–1370.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, J. K., & Sugovic, M. (2013b). Response bias cannot explain action-specific effects: evidence from compliant and non-compliant participants. Perception, 42, 138–152.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, J. K., Sugovic, M., & Dodd, M. D. (2016). Action-specific perception of speed is independent of attention. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 78(3), 880–890. doi:10.3758/s13414-015-1047-6.CrossRef

Witt, J. K., Sugovic, M., & Taylor, J. E. T. (2012). Action-specific effects in a social context: others’ abilities influence perceived speed. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 715–725. doi:10.1037/a0026261.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, J. K., Sugovic, M., Tenhundfeld, N. T., & King, Z. R. (2016). An action-specific effect on perception that avoids all pitfalls. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e261. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15002563.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, J. K., Tenhundfeld, N. T., & Bielak, A. A. M. (2017). Dissociating perception from judgment in the action-specific effect of blocking ease on perceived speed. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 79(1), 283–297.CrossRef

Woods, A. J., Philbeck, J. W., & Danoff, J. 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(4), 1104–1117. doi:10.1037/a0013622.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: What you see and what you are told: an action-specific effect that is unaffected by explicit feedback
Auteurs: Zachary R. King
Nathan L. Tenhundfeld
Jessica K. Witt
Publicatiedatum: 02-03-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0848-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2018

Pain and executive functions: a unique relationship between Stroop task and experimentally induced pain

Training working memory updating in young adults

COMT genotype is associated with plasticity in sense of body ownership: a pilot study

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex does not enhance the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback schedules

The delay period as an opportunity to think about future intentions: Effects of delay length and delay task difficulty on young adult’s prospective memory performance

The limits of boundaries: unpacking localization and cognitive mapping relative to a boundary