Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:41:36.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Final Reply to Hutchison and Loomis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Dennis R. Proffitt ,
Jeanine Stefanucci ,
Tom Banton  and
William Epstein
Dennis R. Proffitt*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Jeanine Stefanucci
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Tom Banton
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
William Epstein
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
*
Correspondence: Dennis Proffitt, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904 (USA). Office Phone: 434-924-0655. Fax: 434-982-4750. E-mail: drp@virginia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While acknowledging that their design and methods were different from the original Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein (2003) study, Hutchison and Loomis (H&L) continue to argue that their findings qualify our account of energetic influences on distance perception. This reply provides a brief and focused discussion of the methodological differences between their study and ours and why these differences were likely responsible for the different results. It is also argued that the measures employed by H&L are assessments of apparent location, not apparent distance.

Aunque Hutchison y Loomis (H&L) reconozcan que el diseño y los métodos de su estudio difieren de los del trabajo original de Proffit, Stefanucci, Banton y Epstein (2003), siguen indicando que sus resultados cuestionan nuestra explicación sobre la influencia del consumo energético en la percepción de la distancia. Esta replica proporciona una discusión breve centrada en las diferencias metodologicas existentes entre su estudio y el nuestro, y también sobre por qué tales diferencias son las causas más probables de las diferencias en los resultados. Se indica, además, que las medidas empleadas por H&L son adecuadas para evaluar la localización pero no la distancia aparente.

Keywords

distance perceptionspatial perceptionenergeticsperceived locationintentionpercepción de la distanciapercepción espacialconsumo energéticolocalización percibidafinalidad
Type
Monographic Section: Spatial Vision and Visual Space
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , November 2006 , pp. 346 - 348
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

Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096.Google ScholarPubMed
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
Hutchison, J.J. & Loomis, J.M. (this issue). Reply to Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, and Epstein.Google Scholar
Kudoh, N. (2005). Dissociation between visual perception of allocentric distance and visually directed walking of its extent. Perception, 34, 1399–1416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 72–85Google ScholarPubMed
Proffitt, D.R., Bhalla, M., Gossweiler, R., & Midgett, J. (1995). Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 409–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proffitt, D.R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stefanucci, J.K., Proffitt, D.R., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2005). Distances appear different on hills. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1052–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witt, J.K., Proffitt, D.R., & Epstein, W. (2004). Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception, 33, 577–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed