Here, we investigate how body orientation relative to gravity affects the perceived size of visual targets. When in virtual reality, participants judged the size of a visual target projected at simulated distances of between 2 and 10 m and compared it to a physical reference length held in their hands while they were standing or lying prone or supine. Participants needed to make the visual size of the target 5.4% larger when supine and 10.1% larger when prone, compared to when they were in an upright position to perceive that it matched the physical reference length. Needing to make the target larger when lying compared to when standing suggests some not mutually exclusive possibilities. It may be that while tilted participants perceived the targets as smaller than when they were upright. It may be that participants perceived the targets as being closer while tilted compared to when upright. It may also be that participants perceived the physical reference length as longer while tilted. Misperceiving objects as larger and/or closer when lying may provide a survival benefit while in such a vulnerable position.

Past studies have found poorer performance on vertical heading judgement accuracy compared to horizontal heading judgement accuracy. In everyday life, precise vertical heading judgements are used less often than horizontal heading judgements as we cannot usually control our vertical direction. However, pilots judging a landing approach need to consistently discriminate vertical heading angles to land safely. This study addresses the impact of training on participants' ability to judge their touchdown point relative to a target in a virtual environment with a clearly defined ground plane and horizon. Thirty-one participants completed a touchdown point estimation task twice, using three angles of descent (3°, 6° and 9°). In between the two testing tasks, half of the participants completed a flight simulator landing training task which provided feedback on their vertical heading performance; while, the other half completed a two-dimensional puzzle game as a control. Overall, participants were more precise in their responses in the second testing compared to the first (from a SD of ± 0.91° to ± 0.67°), but only the experimental group showed improvement in accuracy (from a mean error of − 2.1° to − 0.6°). Our results suggest that with training, vertical heading judgments can be as accurate as horizontal heading judgments. This study is the first to show the effectiveness of training in vertical heading judgement in naïve individuals. The results are applicable in the field of aviation, informing possible strategies for pilot training.