Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:09:36.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Hutchison and Loomis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Dennis R. Proffitt ,
Jeanine Stefanucci ,
Tom Banton  and
William Epstein
Dennis R. Proffitt*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Jeanine Stefanucci
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Tom Banton
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
William Epstein
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
*
Correspondence: Dennis Proffitt, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904 (USA). Office Phone: 434-924-0655. Fax: 434-982-4750. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003) reported a set of studies showing that the perceived distance to a target is influenced by the effort required to walk to its location. Hutchison and Loomis (H&L) reported an experiment that failed to find a significant influence of effort on indices of apparent distance. There were numerous important differences between the design and methods of H&L's study and those of Proffitt et al. Moreover, there are important theoretical reasons to believe that these differences were responsible for the different results. The theoretical motivation of H&L's studies was also brought into question.

Proffit, Stefanucci, Banton y Epstein (2003) proporcionan un conjunto de trabajos en los que se muestra que la distancia a la que se percibe un estímulo-objetivo depende del esfuerzo requerido para caminar hasta él. Hutchison y Loomis (H&L) presentan un experimento en el que el esfuerzo no produjo efectos significativos en los índices de distancia aparente. Existen numerosas e importantes diferencias entre el diseño y los métodos del estudio de H & L y los de Proffit et al. Más aún, existen importantes razones teóricas para pensar que tales diferencias causaron las diferencias observadas en los resultados. Se cuestiona la motivación teórica de los estudios de H&L.

Keywords

distance perceptionspatial perceptionenergeticsperceived locationintentionpercepción de la distanciapercepción espacialconsumo energéticolocalización percibidafinalidad
Type
Monographic Section: Spatial Vision and Visual Space
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , November 2006 , pp. 340 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D.R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096.Google ScholarPubMed
Hutchison, J.J. & Loomis, J.M. (this issue). Does energy expenditure affect the perception of egocentric distance? A failure to replicate Experiment 1 of Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003).Google Scholar
Proffitt, DR. (in press). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Proffitt, D.R., Bhalla, M., Gossweiler, R., & Midgett, J. (1995). Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 409–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proffitt, D.R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sedgwick, H. (1973). The visible horizon: A potential source of visual information for the perception of size and distance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 1301–1302B. (University Microfilms No. 73-22530).Google Scholar
Sedgwick, H. (1986). Space perception. In Boff, K. R., Kaufman, L., & Thomas, J. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 1, pp 1–57). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Stefanucci, J.K., Proffitt, D.R., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2005). Distances appear different on hills. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1052–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witt, J.K., Proffitt, D.R., & Epstein, W. (2004). Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception, 33, 577–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed