In this reply, we acknowledge that methodological differences between the experiment of Proffitt et al. (2003) and ours might explain our failure to replicate their finding. However, we maintain that our results obtained with three different response measures point to a lack of robustness. In this reply, we acknowledge that methodological differences between the experiment of Proffitt et al. (2003) and ours might explain our failure to replicate their finding. However, we maintain that our results obtained with three different response measures point to a lack of robustness of their finding. In response to their criticism of using blind walking to measure perceived distance, we argue on theoretical grounds that blind walking, while involving post-perceptual processes, can nevertheless provide a measure of perceived distance, and then cite some of the evidence indicating that it does indeed provide such a measure.

En esta réplica, los autores reconocen que las diferencias metodológicas respecto al experimento de Proffit et al. (2003) podrían explicar el fallo en la replicación. Sin embargo, se indica que la obtención de resultados negativos en tres medidas diferentes parece implicar una escasa fortaleza en el efecto. Por otra parte, y en respuesta a las críticas sobre el uso de caminar a ciegas para medir la distancia percibida, se argumenta teóricamente que esta conducta puede proporcionar una medida adecuada de la distancia percibida, aunque implique procesos posteriores a la percepción. También se cita alguna evidencia en apoyo de esta conclusión.