Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:16:52.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Jeffrey J. Hutchison*
Affiliation:
Brown University
Jack M. Loomis
Affiliation:
University of California
*
Address correspondence to Jeffrey J. Hutchison, Department of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI 02192 (USA). E-mail: Jeffrey_Hutchison@brown.edu

Abstract

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.

Type
Monographic Section: Spatial Vision and Visual Space
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

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
Loomis, J.M., & Philbeck, J.W.Measuring perceived egocentric distance with spatial updating and action. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Ooi, T.L., Wu, B., & He, Z.J. (2001). Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon. Nature, 414, 197200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ooi, T.L., Wu, B., & He, Z.J., (in press). Perceptual space in the dark affected by the intrinsic bias of the visual system. Perception.Google Scholar
Philbeck, J.W., & Loomis, J.M. (1997). Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 7285.Google ScholarPubMed
Proffitt, D.R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in distance perception. Psychological Science, 14, 106113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proffitt, D.R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (this issue). Reply to Hutchison and Loomis.Google Scholar
Witt, J.K., Proffitt, D.R., & Epstein, W. (2004). Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception, 33, 577590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, B., Ooi, T. L., He, Z.J. (2004) Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information. Nature, 428, 7377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed