Pushing people to their tipping point: Phenomenal tipping point is predicted by phenomenal vertical and intuitive beliefs.

Previous work has shown that people overestimate their own body tilt by a factor of about 1.5, the same factor by which people overestimate geographical and man-made slopes. In Experiment 1 we investigated whether people can accurately identify their own and others' tipping points (TPs) - the point at which they are tilted backward and would no longer be able to return to upright - as well as their own and others' center of mass (COM) - the relative position of which is used to determine actual TP. We found that people overestimate their own and others' TP when tilted backward, estimate their own and others' COM higher than actual, and that COM estimation is unrelated to TP. In Experiment 2, we investigated people's intuitive beliefs about the TP. We also investigated the relationship between phenomenal TP and perceived vertical. Whether verbally (conceptually) estimating the TP, drawing the TP, or demonstrating the position of the TP, people believe that the TP is close to 45°. In Experiment 3, we found that anchoring influences phenomenal TP and vertical. When accounting for starting position, the TP seems to be best predicted by an intuitive belief that it is close to 45°. In Experiment 4, we show that there is no difference in phenomenal TP and vertical when being tilted about the feet or waist/hips. We discuss the findings in terms of action-perception differences found in other domains and practical implications.

Perception of objects oriented downward from a vertical position.

In the present work we investigated people's perceptions of orientation for surfaces that are conceived of as being sloped downward from vertical against a vertical reference frame. In the three conditions of Experiment 1, participants either (1) placed a ladder against a wall at what they thought was the most stable position, and then estimated its orientation; (2) gave a verbal (conceptual) estimate of what the most stable position of a ladder leaned against a wall would be; or (3) drew a line representing the most stable position of a ladder to be placed against a wall, and then gave a verbal estimate of the ladder's orientation. Ladder placement was shallower than the most stable position, as were the verbal estimations of both the positioned and drawn orientations and the verbal (conceptual) estimates of the most stable position for a ladder to be leaned against a wall, relative to the actual orientations. In Experiment 2, participants verbally estimated various ladder orientations. The estimates were again shallower than the actual orientations. For orientations between 60° and 90°, the estimates showed a scale compression effect from horizontal. This perceived exaggeration of the orientation of an object typically oriented down from vertical is similar to the perceived exaggeration of the orientation of hills and ramps, typically thought of as oriented up from horizontal. This may point to a generic perceived exaggeration of slant whose direction depends on the conceptual or actual reference frame being used.

Pitching people with an inversion table: Estimates of body orientation are tipped as much as those of visual surfaces.

In the current work we investigate people's perception of their own body tilt in the pitch direction. In Experiment 1, we tilted people backward at 1 of 5 different randomly assigned angles using an inversion table. People significantly overestimated the angle at which they were tilted backward at angles from 8° to 45°. The slope of the plotted average overestimates had a gain of 1.46, fitting nicely with previously reported gains of verbal overestimates of visually perceived slant of natural outdoor geographically oriented slopes as well as man-made wooden slopes within and outside of reach in the laboratory. In Experiment 2, we showed participants a 45° line and asked them to indicate when they were positioned at that orientation. Participants again significantly overestimated the angle at which they were tilted backward. This extends work showing that a scale-expanded theory of visual space is multisensory, results in equivalent estimates for both verbal and nonverbal/nonnumeric methods, and can now be expanded to include the perceived orientation of one's own body.

Palm board and verbal estimates of slant reflect the same perceptual representation.

People verbally overestimate the orientation of slanted surfaces, but accurately estimate or underestimate slanted surfaces using a palm board. We demonstrate a fundamental issue that explains why the two different values typically given for palm board and verbal/visual matching estimates express similar perceptual representations of slanted surfaces. The fundamental problem in studies measuring palm board and verbal estimates is that the "measure"-either (1) reproducing a verbally given angle or the orientation of a slanted surface with an unseen hand or (2) verbally or visually estimating a visually perceived surface-has always been confounded with the "surface"-either using (1) a palm board or (2) a hill or ramp. Although reproduction has exclusively been used with palm boards in these studies, at the same time verbal estimation or visual matching has exclusively been used with hills/ramps. In three experiments, we showed that verbally estimating palm board orientations produces overestimates by a factor of 1.5, whereas reproducing the orientation of the surface of a ramp to verbally given angles produces gains of ~0.6. These values are similar to those seen for verbal overestimates of slanted surfaces, and to palm board gains for near surfaces and the relative palm-board-to-verbal gains for outdoor hills, respectively. Eliminating this confound eliminated the difference previously seen across surfaces. We discuss how and why different measures should produce different results if we overestimate slant in general and perceptually represent slant in the same way, both haptically and visually.