August 2010
Volume 10, Issue 7
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2010
How Accurate is Memory for Familiar Slope?
Author Affiliations
  • Anthony Stigliani
    Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College
  • Frank Durgin
    Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College
  • Zhi Li
    Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College
Journal of Vision August 2010, Vol.10, 1245. doi:10.1167/10.7.1245
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Anthony Stigliani, Frank Durgin, Zhi Li; How Accurate is Memory for Familiar Slope?. Journal of Vision 2010;10(7):1245. doi: 10.1167/10.7.1245.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 

Geographical slant is generally overestimated. It has been reported that these overestimations are even greater in memory than in perception (Creem & Proffitt, 1998). However, these prior studies have used imagery instructions, which may encourage biased responding. We asked two groups of undergraduates to provide verbal, and pictorial or proprioceptive slope estimates of 5 familiar campus paths ranging in actual slope from 0.5 to 8.6 deg. One set of 30 participants was led to the base of each path and made their estimates while looking at it (Perception Condition). The other set of 30 participants made estimates from memory (Memory Condition). Maps, satellite photos and verbal names for the paths were used in the memory condition to ensure that participants understood the location of the path to be judged. Half the participants in each condition were asked to hold out their unseen hand to represent the slope of the path. Hand orientation was measured precisely with a micro-inclinometer. Following this they made verbal estimates. The other half of the participants adjusted a 2D line on a computer screen to represent the slope of the path prior to making verbal estimates. All three measures showed the same patterns. For one of the shallower paths (1.2 deg), proprioceptive estimates from memory were slightly lower (2.3 deg) than the proprioceptive estimates of those viewing the path (4.0 deg), t(28) = 2.08, p = .046. For all other paths and measures, there was no evident or consistent difference between memory and perception on any of the measures. Non-verbal estimates were lower than verbal estimates, but all estimates overestimated all hills both in perception and in memory. We conclude that memory for familiar paths includes unbiased (normal) perceptual information about path inclination. Creem, S.H., & Proffitt, D.R. (1998). Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 5(1):22-36.

 
Stigliani, A. Durgin, F. Li, Z. (2010). How Accurate is Memory for Familiar Slope? [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 10(7):1245, 1245a, http://www.journalofvision.org/content/10/7/1245, doi:10.1167/10.7.1245. [CrossRef]
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×