Individual differences in distance perception

Abstract

Distance perception is among the most pervasive mental phenomena and the oldest research topics in behavioural science. However, we do not understand well the most pervasive finding of distance perception research, that of large individual differences. There are large individual differences in acrophobia (fear of heights), which we commonly assume consists of an abnormal fear of stimuli perceived normally. Evolved navigation theory (ENT) instead suggests that acrophobia consists of a more normal fear of stimuli perceived abnormally. ENT suggests that distance perception individual differences produce major components of acrophobia. Acrophobia tested over a broad range in the present study predicted large individual differences in distance estimation of surfaces that could produce falls. This fear of heights correlated positively with distance estimates of a vertical surface-even among non-acrophobic individuals at no risk of falling and without knowledge of being tested for acrophobia. Acrophobia score predicted magnitude of the descent illusion, which is thought to reflect the risk of falling. These data hold important implications in environmental navigation, clinical aetiology and the evolution of visual systems.

Evolved navigation theory and the plateau illusion

“…Data from a repeated-measures analysis of variance suggested significant differences between edge and ground estimates, F(1, 52) = 57.98, p < .001, a significant difference in magnitude across stimulus lengths, F(2, 104) = 15.58, p = .004, and no significant interaction between these two variables, F(2, 104) = 0.07, p = .934. This manipulation generally replicated the results of similar manipulations in previous research (Jackson, 2005(Jackson, , 2009Jackson & Cormack, 2007, 2008Jackson & Willey, 2011).…”

“…ground). Underestimation in order to increase safe navigation extends directly from the ENT concept of overestimation in order to decrease risky navigation outlined in previous literature (Jackson, 2005(Jackson, , 2009(Jackson, , 2013Jackson & Cormack, 2006, 2007, 2008Jackson & Willey, 2011). Although the visual setting of Experiment 1 did not generate a clear underestimation, we observed the expected underestimation across all expected distances in Experiment 2, plausibly generated by the presence of clear navigation risks.…”

“…Jackson (2005) and Jackson and Cormack (2006, 2007, 2008 outlined the ENT reasoning above and presented data that tested this idea in a variety of circumstances, including discoveries of the descent and environmental vertical illusions. Further, Jackson (2009) found that observers who (unknowingly) most overestimate the length of surfaces from which they could fall also most overestimate the risk of falling. Jackson and Cormack (2010) found that removal of falling risk removes these overestimations, while Jackson and Willey (2011) found that adding falling risks to otherwise correctly estimated surfaces induces these overestimations.…”

“…evolved navigation theory, or ENT (see Jackson, 2005;Jackson & Cormack, 2007), focuses on how navigation risks or costs over evolutionary time, such as falling, energetic expenditure, and predation, may shape physical and cognitive capacities. Distance perception is a specific perceptual mechanism that ENT researchers have suggested weights navigational decisions by navigation risks (Jackson, 2005(Jackson, , 2009). Humans tend to prefer the nearest of otherwise equivalent navigational goals; i.e.…”

State estimation bias induced by optimization under uncertainty and error cost asymmetry is likely reflected in perception

“…It has been found that those factors result in significant overestimation of geographical slant (Stefanucci et al 2008) or height (Jackson 2009;Stefanucci and Storbeck 2009). In the study of Stefanucci et al (2008), the subjects were asked to estimate the slant of the hill slope while standing on either a skateboard or a wooden box of the same height.…”