Literature DB >> 18488665

Expectation affects verbal judgments but not reaches to visually perceived egocentric distances.

Christopher C Pagano1, Robert W Isenhower.   

Abstract

Two response measures for reporting visually perceived egocentric distances-verbal judgments and blind manual reaches-were compared using a within-trial methodology. The expected range of possible target distances was manipulated by instructing the subjects that the targets would be between .50 and 1.00 of their maximum arm reach in one session and between .25 and .90 in another session. The actual range of target distances was always .50-.90. Verbal responses varied as a function of the range of expected distances, whereas simultaneous reaches remained unaffected. These results suggest that verbal responses are subject to a cognitive influence that does not affect actions. It is suggested that action responses are indicative of absolute perception, whereas cognitive responses may reflect only relative perception. The results also indicate that the dependant variable utilized for the study of depth perception will influence the obtained results.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18488665     DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.2.437

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  28 in total

1.  Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion?

Authors:  F Pavani; I Boscagli; F Benvenuti; M Rabuffetti; A Farnè
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics.

Authors:  Y Hu; M A Goodale
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  The induced Roelofs effect: two visual systems or the shift of a single reference frame?

Authors:  Paul Dassonville; Bruce Bridgeman; Jagdeep Kaur Bala; Paul Thiem; Anthony Sampanes
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action.

Authors:  David A Westwood; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2003

5.  Comparing measures of monocular distance perception: verbal and reaching errors are not correlated.

Authors:  C C Pagano; G P Bingham
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions.

Authors:  J W Philbeck; J M Loomis
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand.

Authors:  S Aglioti; J F DeSouza; M A Goodale
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  1995-06-01       Impact factor: 10.834

8.  The familiar-size cue to depth under reduced-cue viewing conditions.

Authors:  J Predebon; J S Woolley
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.490

9.  The role of suggested size in distance responses.

Authors:  W C Gogel
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1981-08

10.  Grasping without form discrimination in a hemianopic field.

Authors:  M T Perenin; Y Rossetti
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1996-02-29       Impact factor: 1.837

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.