We examined whether the apparent size of an object is scaled to the morphology of the relevant body part with which one intends to act on it. To be specific, we tested if the visually perceived size of graspable objects is scaled to the extent of apparent grasping ability for the individual. Previous research has shown that right-handed individuals perceive their right hand as larger and capable of grasping larger objects than their left. In the first 2 experiments, we found that objects looked smaller when placed in or judged relative to their right hand compared to their left. In the third experiment, we directly manipulated apparent hand size by magnifying the participants' hands. Participants perceived objects to be smaller when their hand was magnified than when their hand was unmagnified. We interpret these results as demonstrating that perceivers use the extent of their hands' grasping abilities as “perceptual rulers” to scale the apparent size of graspable objects. Furthermore, hand size manipulations did not affect the perceived size of objects too big to be grasped, which suggests that hand size is only used as a scaling mechanism when the object affords the relevant action, in this case, grasping.

Previous research has shown that hills appear steeper to those who are fatigued, encumbered, of low physical fitness, elderly, or in declining health (Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999; Proffitt, Bhalla, Gossweiler, & Midgett, 1995). The prevailing interpretation of this research is that observers’ perceptions of the environment are influenced by their capacity to navigate that environment. The current studies extend this programme by investigating more subtle embodied effects on perception of slant; namely those of mood. In two studies, with two different mood manipulations, and two estimates of slant in each, observers in a sad mood reported hills to be steeper. These results support the role of mood and motivational factors in influencing spatial perception, adding to the previous work showing that energetic potential can influence perception.

This research was designed to test the predictions of 2 approaches to perception. By most traditional accounts, people are thought to derive general-purpose spatial perceptions that are scaled in arbitrary, unspecified units. In contrast, action-specific approaches propose that the angular information inherent in optic flow and ocular–motor adjustments is rescaled and transformed into units related to intended actions. A number of studies have shown, for example, that the apparent distance to targets is scaled by the effort required to walk the extent. Such studies can be accommodated by the traditional account by asserting that the experimental manipulations of walking effort influenced not perception itself, but rather postperceptual response processes. The current studies were designed to assess when and how action-specific influences on distance perception have their effects. The results supported the action-specific account.

The notion that apparent sizes are perceived relative to the size of one’s body is supported through the discovery of a new visual illusion. When graspable objects are magnified by magnifying goggles, they appear to shrink back to near-normal size when one’s hand (also magnified) is placed next to them. When objects are “minified” by minifying goggles, the opposite occurs. The rescaling effect also occurred when participants who were trained in tool use viewed the tool next to the objects. However, this change in apparent size does not occur when familiar objects or someone else’s hand is placed next to the magnified or minified object. Presumably, objects’ apparent sizes shift closer to their actual sizes when one’s hand is viewed because objects’ sizes relative to the hand are the same with or without the goggles. These findings highlight the role of body scaling in size perception.

When locomoting in a physically challenging environment, the body draws upon available energy reserves to accommodate increased metabolic demand. Ingested glucose supplements the body's energy resources, whereas non-caloric sweetener does not. Two experiments demonstrate that participants who had consumed a glucose-containing drink perceived the slant of a hill to be less steep than did participants who had consumed a drink containing non-caloric sweetener. The glucose manipulation influenced participants' explicit awareness of hill slant but, as predicted, it did not affect a visually guided action of orienting a tilting palmboard to be parallel to the hill. Measured individual differences in factors related to bioenergetic state, such as fatigue, sleep quality, fitness, mood, and stress, also affected perception: lower energetic states were associated with steeper perceptions of hill slant. This research shows that the perception of the spatial layout of the environment is influenced by the energetic resources available for locomotion within it. Our findings are consistent with the view that spatial perceptions are influenced by bioenergetic factors.

How do people perceive the three‐dimensional qualities of the world and the objects in it? Most investigators believe that the primary information for perception is the images projected onto our retinas. The problem of depth perception would thereby seem to be intractable; our visual system gets information limited to two dimensions (the projected retinal images), which does not uniquely determine any single three‐dimensional characteristics of the world. Yet we somehow perceive the three‐dimensional world that made those projections, and quite accurately in most circumstances. The two‐dimensional images are inherently ambiguous as to size and distance (e.g., large objects that are distant create the same projection as small objects that are close) as well as orientation (a rectangle and a trapezoid can both create the same retinal projection). People solve this problem, called the inverse projection problem, by combining four types of information, or depth cues: (1) oculomotor, (2) stereo, (3) pictorial, and (4) motion cues.

Previous research has suggested that perceived distances are scaled by the action capabilities of the body. The present studies showed that when “reachability” is constrained due to a difficult grasp required to pick up an object, perceived distance to the object increases. Participants estimated the distances to tools with handle orientations that made them either easy or difficult to grasp with their dominant and nondominant hands. Right-handed participants perceived tools that were more difficult to grasp to be farther away than tools that were easier to grasp. However, perceived distance did not differ in left-handed participants. These studies suggest that, when reaching toward a target, the distance to that target is scaled in terms of how far one can effectively reach, given the type of reaching posture that is executed. Furthermore, this effect is modulated by handedness.

We argue that the experimental conditions in the Durgin et al. (2009) study were so different from those in Bhalla and Proffitt (1999) that the results of the former study cannot be generalized to the latter. The participants in the Durgin et al. study viewed a 2-m-long ramp; those in Bhalla and Proffitt viewed expansive hills. When drawing generalizations from one study to another, equating experimental conditions is always important; moreover, from an embodied perspective on perception, equating the opportunities for action also matters.

The current study tested whether height overestimation is related to height fear and influenced by images of falling. To assess perceptual biases, participants high (n = 65) versus low (n = 64) in height fear estimated the vertical extents of two balconies using a visual matching task. On one of the balconies, participants engaged in an imagery exercise designed to enhance the subjective sense that they were acting in a dangerous environment by picturing themselves falling. As expected, we found that individuals overestimated the balcony's height more after they imagined themselves falling, particularly if they were already afraid of heights. These findings suggest that height fear may serve as a vulnerability factor that leads to perceptual biases when triggered by a stressor (in this case, images of falling).

Previous research on perceiving spatial layout has found that people often exhibit normative biases in their perception of the environment. For instance, slant is typically overestimated and distance is usually underestimated. Surprisingly, however, the perception of height has rarely been studied. The present experiments examined the perception of height when viewed from the top (e.g., looking down) or from the bottom (e.g., looking up). Multiple measures were adapted from previous studies of horizontal extents to assess the perception of height. Across all of the measures, a large, consistent bias was found: Vertical distances were greatly overestimated, especially from the top. Secondary findings suggest that the overestimation of distance and size that occurs when looking down from a high place correlates with reports of trait- and state-level fear of heights, suggesting that height overestimation may be due, in part, to fear.