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.