Expert performance by athletes in the verbal estimation of spatial extents does not alter their perceptual metric of space

Abstract

Athletes often give more accurate estimates of egocentric distance along the ground than do non-athletes. To explore whether cognitive calibration was accompanied by perceptual change, athletes and non-athletes made verbal height and distance estimates and also did a perceptual matching task between perceived egocentric distances and frontal vertical extents. Both groups were well calibrated for height estimation for poles viewed frontally, but athletes were much better calibrated at estimating longer egocentric distances (which are systematically underestimated by non-athletes). Athletes were more likely to have learned specific units of ground distance from relevant sports contexts. Both groups reported using human height as a metric for vertical extent. For non-athletes, verbal underestimation of ground distance corresponded to predictions based on perceptual matches between egocentric distances and vertical extents in conjunction with human-height-based verbal estimates of vertical extents. For athletes, the verbal scaling of egocentric distances of 10 m or more was more accurate and was not predicted by their egocentric distance matches to vertical extents.

Figure 1.

An illustration of a model of egocentric distance and height matching based on measured biases in perceived angular elevation and declination of gaze. The physical situation at the point of a perceived match between pole height and egocentric distance is depicted by the solid lines. These lines represent a vertical pole and the angular directions from the observer's eye to the top, eye-height level, and base of the pole. The dashed lines represent the imputed perceptual experience at the subjective matching point based on prior evidence that gaze declination and gaze elevation are exaggerated with a gain of about 1.5. Biases in perceived directions of gaze, in combination with eye-height, define the perceived egocentric distance and height of the pole geometrically. The model accounts quantitatively for dramatic biases observed in matches between egocentric distance and vertical extents. Eye-height (human height) can provide the scale for both height and distance. Note that angular distortions leading to the expanded angles shown by the dashed lines compress perceived egocentric distance substantially but, as illustrated, do not have much effect on perceived height at the apparent equi-distance point.

Figure 2.

Egocentric distance estimation by verbal report (a) and by visually directed actions (b) for athletes and non-athletes. Standard errors of the means are shown.

Figure 3.

Egocentric distance estimation in VR for athletes and non-athletes. The dashed line represents expected VR distance compression. Filled circles represent the athletes' estimates. Open circles are the non-athletes' estimates. Standard errors of the means are shown. Note that error bars are smaller than plot points for short distances, which are underestimated by both groups relative to VR compression.

Figure 4.

Egocentric distance matches to vertical extents in VR for athletes and non-athletes. Filled circles represent the athletes' matches. Open circles are the non-athletes' matches. Standard errors of the means are shown.