Wielding a gun increases judgments of others as holding guns: a randomized controlled trial.

The gun embodiment effect is the consequence caused by wielding a gun on judgments of whether others are also holding a gun. This effect could be responsible for real-world instances when police officers shoot an unarmed person because of the misperception that the person had a gun. The gun embodiment effect is an instance of embodied cognition for which a person's tool-augmented body affects their judgments. The replication crisis in psychology has raised concern about embodied cognition effects in particular, and the issue of low statistical power applies to the original research on the gun embodiment effect. Thus, the first step was to conduct a high-powered replication. We found a significant gun embodiment effect in participants' reaction times and in their proportion of correct responses, but not in signal detection measures of bias, as had been originally reported. To help prevent the gun embodiment effect from leading to fatal encounters, it would be useful to know whether individuals with certain traits are less prone to the effect and whether certain kinds of experiences help alleviate the effect. With the new and reliable measure of the gun embodiment effect, we tested for moderation by individual differences related to prior gun experience, attitudes, personality, and factors related to emotion regulation and impulsivity. Despite the variety of these measures, there was little evidence for moderation. The results were more consistent with the idea of the gun embodiment effect being a universal, fixed effect, than being a flexible, malleable effect.

Human and machine: Evaluating whether action automation influences visual perception.

The action-specific account of perception suggests that our perceptual system is influenced by information about our ability to act in our environment and, thus, affects our perception. However, the specific information about action that is influential for perception is still largely unknown. For example, if a goal is achieved through automation rather than action, is perception influenced because the goal was achieved or is perception immune because the act was automated rather than performed by the observer? In four experiments, we examined whether automating a paddle to block a moving ball in a computer game similar to Pong affects perception of the ball's speed. Results indicate that the automation used here did not affect speed perception of the target. Whereas tools such as reach-extending sticks and various-sized paddles are both incorporated into one's body schema and also influence spatial perception, automation, our results imply that automation is not incorporated into one's body schema and does not affect spatial perception. The dissociation in how the mind treats tools versus automation could have several implications as automation becomes more prevalent in daily life.

Trust and Distrust of Automated Parking in a Tesla Model X.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to evaluate driver intervention behaviors during a partially automated parking task. BACKGROUND: Cars with partially automated parking features are becoming widely available. Although recent research explores the use of automation features in partially automated cars, none have focused on partially automated parking. Recent incidents and research have demonstrated that drivers sometimes use partially automated features in unexpected, inefficient, and harmful ways. METHOD: Participants completed a series of partially automated parking trials with a Tesla Model X and their behavioral interventions were recorded. Participants also completed a risk-taking behavior test and a post-experiment questionnaire that included questions about trust in the system, likelihood of using the Autopark feature, and preference for either the partially automated parking feature or self-parking. RESULTS: Initial intervention rates were over 50%, but declined steeply in later trials. Responses to open-ended questions revealed that once participants understood what the system was doing, they were much more likely to trust it. Trust in the partially automated parking feature was predicted by a model including risk-taking behaviors, self-confidence, self-reported number of errors committed by the Tesla, and the proportion of trials in which the driver intervened. CONCLUSION: Using partially automated parking with little knowledge of its workings can lead to high degree of initial distrust. Repeated exposure of partially automated features to drivers can greatly increase their use. APPLICATION: Short tutorials and brief explanations of the workings of partially automated features may greatly improve trust in the system when drivers are first introduced to partially automated systems.

The uphill battle for action-specific perception.

The action-specific account of perception states that a perceiver's ability to act influences the perception of the environment. For example, participants tend to perceive distances as farther when presented up hills than on the flat ground. This tendency is known as the distance-on-hill effect. However, there is debate as to whether these types of effects are truly perceptual. Critics of the action-specific account of perception claim that the effects could be due to participants guessing the hypothesis and trying to comply with the experimental demands. The present study aims to explore the distance-on-hill effect and determine whether it is truly perceptual or whether past results were due to response bias. Participants judged the relative distance to targets on a hill and the flat ground. We found the distance-on-hill effect in virtual reality using a visual matching task. The distance-on-hill effect persisted even when participants were given explicit feedback about their estimates. We also found that the effect went away, as predicted by a perceptual explanation, when participants had to match the distance between two cones that were both on hills. These results offer important steps toward the painstaking task of determining whether action's effect on perception is truly perceptual.

Is There a Chastity Belt on Perception?

Can one's ability to perform an action, such as hitting a softball, influence one's perception? According to the action-specific account, perception of spatial layout is influenced by the perceiver's abilities to perform an intended action. Alternative accounts posit that purported effects are instead due to nonperceptual processes, such as response bias. Despite much confirmatory research on both sides of the debate, researchers who promote a response-bias account have never used the Pong task, which has yielded one of the most robust action-specific effects. Conversely, researchers who promote a perceptual account have rarely used the opposition's preferred test for response bias, namely, the postexperiment survey. The current experiments rectified this. We found that even for people naive to the experiment's hypothesis, the ability to block a moving ball affected the ball's perceived speed. Moreover, when participants were explicitly told the hypothesis and instructed to resist the influence of their ability to block the ball, their ability still affected their perception of the ball's speed.

What you see and what you are told: an action-specific effect that is unaffected by explicit feedback.

A critical question for theories of spatial vision concerns the nature of the inputs to perception. The action-specific account asserts that information related to action, specifically a perceiver's ability to perform the intended action, is one of these sources of information. This claim challenges assumptions about the mind in general and perception in particular, and not surprisingly, has been met with much resistance. Alternative explanations include that these effects are due to response bias, rather than genuine differences in perception. Using a paradigm in which ease to block a ball impacts estimated speed of the ball, participants were given explicit feedback about their perceptual judgements to test the response bias alternative. Despite the feedback, the action-specific effect still persisted, thus ruling out a response-bias interpretation. Coupled with other research ruling out additional alternative explanations, the current findings offer an important step towards the claim that a person's ability to act truly influences spatial perception.

Distances on hills look farther than distances on flat ground: Evidence from converging measures.

Distances on hills are judged as farther than when the same distance is presented on the flat ground. The hypothesized reason for this difference is because perception is influenced by the increased effort required to walk up a hill than to walk the same distance on flat ground. Alternatively, distances presented up a hill might be judged as farther for other, nonperceptual reasons such as bias from demand characteristics. To test whether distances on hills are perceived as farther or are merely judged as farther, we used a variety of measures, including visual matching and blindwalking tasks, and found similar effects across all measures. This convergence is consistent with a perceptual explanation. Second, we mined our data with the goal of making recommendations for future research on this paradigm. Although all of the perceptual measures used showed similar effects, visual matching was the only measure that had good intrasubject reliability. We recommend that future research on this action-specific effect could use any measure unless the research is geared towards individual differences, in which case, only the visual matching measure of perceived distance should be used.

Dissociating perception from judgment in the action-specific effect of blocking ease on perceived speed.

The action-specific approach to perception claims that a person's ability to act directly influences perceptual processes related to spatial vision. For example, a person's ability to block a moving ball impacts perceptual judgments of the ball's speed. However, an alternative explanation is that action rather than perception influences judgments. Here, we explore this distinction directly. Our method produces two distinct effects, one that is clearly a judgment-based effect and is based on the outcome of the trial (trial-outcome effect) and one that is under debate as to whether or not it is perceptual and is based on the ease with which the ball can be blocked (paddle-size effect). We explored whether these two effects would produce convergence or dissociations across various populations and manipulations. A dissociation is evidence for two separate underlying processes, whereas if the two effects did not dissociate, this would be consistent with claims that both effects were judgment-based. In Experiment 1, we examined whether older and younger adults would show a dissociation between the two effects given some precedent for older adults to show greater susceptibility to nonperceptual factors in their judgments. In Experiment 2, we used a cover story to excuse poor performance and examined its effects on both types of effects. Both experiments revealed dissociations, suggesting that while one effect is judgment-based, the other effect is not. Coupled with prior research, we conclude that the action-specific effect of ease to block a ball on estimated ball speed is perceptual.

An action-specific effect on perception that avoids all pitfalls.

The visual system is influenced by action. Objects that are easier to reach or catch look closer and slower, respectively. Here, we describe evidence for one action-specific effect, and show that none of the six pitfalls can account for the results. Vision is not an isolate module, as shown by this top-down effect of action on perception.