There is a current debate concerning whether people's physiological or behavioral potential alters their perception of slanted surfaces. One way to directly test this is to physiologically change people's potential by lowering their blood sugar and comparing their estimates of slant to those with normal blood sugar. In the first investigation of this (Schnall, Zadra, & Proffitt, 2010), it was shown that people with low blood sugar gave higher estimates of slanted surfaces than people with normal blood sugar. The question that arises is whether these higher estimates are due to lower blood sugar, per se, or experimental demand created by other aspects of the experiment. Here evidence was collected from 120 observers showing that directly manipulating physiological potential, while controlling for experimental demand effects, does not alter the perception of slant. Indeed, when experimental demand went against behavioral potential, it produced judgmental biases opposite to those predicted by behavioral potential in the low blood sugar condition. It is suggested that low blood sugar only affects slant judgments by making participants more susceptible to judgmental biases.
BhallaM.ProffittD. R. (1999). Visual–motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096
2.
BridgemanB.HooverM. (2008). Processing spatial layout by perception and sensorimotor interaction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 851–859. doi:10.1080/17470210701623712
3.
CooperA. D.SterlingC. P.BaconM. P.BridgemanB. (2012). Does action affect perception or memory?Vision Research, 62, 235–240. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.04.009
4.
DurginF. H.BairdJ. A.GreenburgM.RussellR.ShaughnessyK.WaymouthS. (2009). Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 964–969. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.964
5.
DurginF. H.HajnalA.LiZ.TongeN.StiglianiA. (2010). Palm boards are not action measures: An alternative to the two-systems theory of geographical slant perception. Acta Psychologica, 134, 182–197. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.01.009
6.
DurginF. H.HajnalA.LiZ.TongeN.StiglianiA. (2011). An imputed dissociation might be an artifact: Further evidence for the generalizability of the observations of Durgin et al. 2010. Acta Psychologica, 138, 281–284. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy .2010.09.002
7.
DurginF. H.KleinB.SpiegelA.StrawserC. J.WilliamsM. (2012). The social psychology of perception experiments: Hills, backpacks, glucose and the problem of generalizability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1582–1595. doi:10.1037/a0027805
Gonder-FrederickL.HallJ. L.VogtJ.CoxD. J.GreenJ.GoldP. E. (1987). Memory enhancement in elderly humans: Effects of glucose ingestion. Physiology & Behavior, 41, 503–504. doi:10.1016/0031-9384(87)90087-4
11.
de GraveD. D. J.BrennerE.SmeetsJ. B. J. (2011). Using a stick does not necessarily alter judged distances or reachability. PLoS One6(2), e16697. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016697
12.
HajnalA.Abdul-MalakD. T.DurginF. H. (2011). The perceptual experience of slope by foot and by finger. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 709–719. doi:10.1037/a0019950
13.
JobV.DweckC. S.WaltonG. M. (2010). Ego depletion – Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693. doi:10.1177/0956797610384745
14.
KammannR. (1967). The overestimation of vertical distance and slope and its role in the moon illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 585–589. doi:10.3758/ BF03210273
15.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2009). Downhill slopes look shallower from the edge. Journal of Vision, 9(11):6, 1–15. doi:10.1167/9.11.6
16.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2010). Perceived slant of binocularly viewed large-scale surfaces: A common model from explicit and implicit measures. Journal of Vision, 10(14), 13 (1–16)
17.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2011). Design, data and theory regarding a digital hand inclinometer: A portable device for studying slant perception. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 363–371. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0047-7
18.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2012). A comparison of two theories of perceived distance on the ground plane: The angular expansion hypothesis and the intrinsic bias hypothesis. iPerception, 3, 368–383
19.
ProffittD. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00008.x
SchnallS.ZadraJ. R.ProffittD. R. (2010). Direct evidence for the economy of action: Glucose and the perception of geographical slant. Perception, 39, 464–482. doi:10.1068/p6445
22.
SedgwickH. A. (1986). Space perception. In BoffK. R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human (pp. 21.1–21.57). New York: John Wiley
23.
ShafferD. M.FlintM. (2011). Escalating slant: Increasing physiological potential does not reduce slant overestimates. Psychological Science, 22, 209–211. doi:10.1177/0956797610393744
24.
StevensK. A. (1983). Slant-tilt: The visual encoding of surface orientation. Biological Cybernetics, 46, 183–195. doi:10.1007/BF00336800
25.
WittJ. K. (2011). Action's effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 201–206. doi:10.1177/0963721411408770
26.
WoodsA. J.PhilbeckJ. W.DanoffJ. V. (2009). The various perceptions of distance: An alternative view of how effort affects distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 35, 1104–1117. doi:10.1037/a0013622