Seeing Mountains in Mole Hills: Geographical-Slant Perception

Proffítt, Dennis R.; Creem, Sarah H.; Zosh, Wendy D.

doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00377

Cited by 88 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Spatial orientation . PitchFor the last two decades, a wealth of evidence shows that people overestimate the slant of both geographical and manmade slopes by between 5°and 25° (Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999;Bridgeman & Hoover, 2008;Creem & Proffitt, 1998; CreemRegehr, Gooch, Sahm, & Thompson, 2004;Durgin & Li, 2011;Durgin, Li, & Hajnal, 2010;Hajnal, Abdul-Malak, & Durgin, 2011;Proffitt, Bhalla, Gossweiler, & Midgett, 1995;Proffitt, Creem & Zosh, 2001;Shaffer & Flint, 2011;Shaffer & McManama, 2015;Stefanucci, Proffitt, Clore, & Parekh, 2008;Witt & Proffitt, 2007). Much less work has been performed on people's perception of their own body orientation in the pitch dimension, and the results of some of this work are difficult to interpret.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces

Shaffer

Taylor

Thomas

et al. 2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current work we investigate people's perception of their own body tilt in the pitch direction. In Experiment 1, we tilted people backward at 1 of 5 different randomly assigned angles using an inversion table. People significantly overestimated the angle at which they were tilted backward at angles from 8°to 45°. The slope of the plotted average overestimates had a gain of 1.46, fitting nicely with previously reported gains of verbal overestimates of visually perceived slant of natural outdoor geographically oriented slopes as well as man-made wooden slopes within and outside of reach in the laboratory. In Experiment 2, we showed participants a 45°line and asked them to indicate when they were positioned at that orientation. Participants again significantly overestimated the angle at which they were tilted backward. This extends work showing that a scale-expanded theory of visual space is multisensory, results in equivalent estimates for both verbal and nonverbal/nonnumeric methods, and can now be expanded to include the perceived orientation of one's own body. Keywords Slant perception . Spatial orientation . PitchFor the last two decades, a wealth of evidence shows that people overestimate the slant of both geographical and manmade slopes by between 5°and 25° (Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999;Bridgeman & Hoover, 2008;Creem & Proffitt, 1998; CreemRegehr, Gooch, Sahm, & Thompson, 2004;Durgin & Li, 2011;Durgin, Li, & Hajnal, 2010;Hajnal, Abdul-Malak, & Durgin, 2011;Proffitt, Bhalla, Gossweiler, & Midgett, 1995;Proffitt, Creem & Zosh, 2001;Shaffer & Flint, 2011;Shaffer & McManama, 2015;Stefanucci, Proffitt, Clore, & Parekh, 2008;Witt & Proffitt, 2007). Much less work has been performed on people's perception of their own body orientation in the pitch dimension, and the results of some of this work are difficult to interpret. For instance, Cohen and Larson (1974) had participants adjust the pitch of their own body every 15°from a supine position to a prone position while restrained in a motorized hospital bed. They found systematic errors of underestimation of body tilt. For instance, when asked to place themselves at 15°backward from a vertical position, they placed themselves at 29°back-ward, and when asked to place themselves at 15°forward, they placed themselves at 23°forward. These errors were consistent but smaller as they moved in either direction in 15°increments from 15°to 60°, at which point there was almost no error. Of the studies to investigate pitch perception, this seems to be the only one where people underestimate pitch. We feel there are at least two reasons for this. First, participants were moved backward in 15°increments until they were prone, and then forward in 15°increments until they were in a supine position. They did this back and forth a total of eight times (four backward, four forward). Carryover effects from each previous estimate likely affected their subsequent estimate. Second, they were giving estimates of, say, 15°backward when they were either erect (straight up and down) o...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces

Shaffer

Taylor

Thomas

et al. 2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Models such as those of Perrone (1982) or Proffitt (Proffitt et al, 2001;Stefanucci et al, 2005) help explain the occurrence of slant overestimation as a visual illusion; yet other work supports the view that additional, nonvisual factors can also contribute to the perceived slant distortion, particularly when judgments involve multisensory information such as occurs with body tilt (Aksamit & Husak, 1983;Higashiyama & Koga, 1998;Ito & Gresty, 1997).…”

Section: Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Past research has documented a robust slant illusion in the visual domain (Perrone, 1982;Proffitt et al, 1995;Proffitt et al, 2001). The present study confirms a related body tilt illusion in the proprioceptive domain.…”

Section: (B) Tilt Forward (Front View) (C) Tilt Forward (Side View)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many studies of human navigational abilities have supported the view that males are more accurate than females. In addition, studies have demonstrated that males colleagues (Proffitt, Creem, & Zosh, 2001;Stefanucci, Proffitt, Banton, & Epstein, 2005) found that participants' overestimations of slant increase even more when they are tired. These findings occur with hills whether or not the slopes are viewed straight-on, from below, or from the side.…”

Section: Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender differences in spatial perception of body tilt

Naylor

McBeath

2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tendency for observers to overestimate slant is not simply a visual illusion but can also occur with another sense, such as proprioception, as in the case of overestimation of self-body tilt. In the present study, distortion in the perception of body tilt was examined as a function of gender and multisensory spatial information. We used a full-body-tilt apparatus to test when participants experienced being tilted by 45º, with visual and auditory cues present or absent. Body tilt was overestimated in all conditions, with the largest bias occurring when there were no visual or auditory cues. Both visual and auditory information independently improved performance. We also found a gender difference, with women exhibiting more bias in the absence of auditory information and more improvement when auditory information was added. The findings support the view that perception of body tilt is multisensory and that women more strongly utilize auditory information in such multisensory spatial judgments.

show abstract

“…For discussion of the role of physiological states in fixing contents of experience, see Proffitt et al (2001). 18 A further objection to the argument was pointed out to me by Adam Pautz.…”

Section: Section 3 What If Experiences Don't Have High-level Content?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The significance of high-level content

Silins

2012

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seeing Mountains in Mole Hills: Geographical-Slant Perception

Cited by 88 publications

References 5 publications

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces

Gender differences in spatial perception of body tilt

The significance of high-level content

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About