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.

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.

While acknowledging that their design and methods were different from the original Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003) study, Hutchison and Loomis (H&L) continue to argue that their findings qualify our account of energetic influences on distance perception. This reply provides a brief and focused discussion of the methodological differences between their study and ours and why these differences were likely responsible for the different results. It is also argued that the measures employed by H&L are assessments of apparent location, not apparent distance.