TY - JOUR
AU - Ho,, Huei-Ying
AB - Abstract Two experiments investigated the effects of age and experience on length perception. A total of 46 participants were asked to wield and estimate the length of unseen rods by adjusting a movable board to equal their estimate of the reachable distance of the rod. The results demonstrated that (a) participants used the haptic subsystem of dynamic touch to perceive dissimilarities in object length and (b) experience playing racquet sports was more influential than the effect of age in perceptual judgments regarding object length. The results are discussed in the context of the ecological approach to haptic perception. Dynamic touch, Length perception, Experience, Aging, Ecological perspective We pick up objects and wield them. We pick up scissors and cut paper, we pick up sticks and rub them together to make a fire, we pick up a racquet and swing it. Objects are material things, having mass, and mass resists our efforts to displace it. This resistance generates pressure on the hand, pressure that influences the stimulation of receptors in the skin, muscles, and tendons. For this reason, the act of wielding can provide an impression of the spatial dimensions of the object. This type of perception is known as dynamic touch (Gibson, 1962, 1966). The spatiotemporal pattern of pressure exerted on the hand as we move an object is influenced by our movements, but also by inertial properties of the object. Analytically, it has been shown that the pattern of pressure that a wielded object exerts on the hand is deterministically related to the object's length (Solomon & Turvey, 1988). Relations between an object's length and its resistance to movement (i.e., the pattern of pressures that it will exert when moved) can be formalized in terms of the object's inertia tensor. In recent years there has been a surge in research on the role of the inertia tensor in dynamic touch (for reviews, see Carello & Turvey, 2004; Turvey, 1996). Outside the laboratory, manual wielding is a complex activity involving multidimensional rotations about multiple joints, including the wrist, elbow, and shoulder. In most laboratory research on dynamic touch, researchers have simplified the situation by restricting movement to the wrist joint, and by requiring participants to grasp the rod at one end (Turvey, 1996), The wielding motion of the rod represents a three-dimensional rotation in space with a reference point 0, located at the joint of the wrist. The other two axes, the x axis and the y axis, lay on the horizontal and vertical planes, respectively. This hand–rod system is depicted in Figure 1. The intersection of the y axis and the longitudinal axis is denoted as point F. The distances from point F to point 0 and to the end of the rod have been reported to be approximately 6 cm and 4 cm, respectively (after Stroop, Turvey, Fitzpatrick, & Carello, 2000). Hence the position (x, y, z) of the center of mass with respect to this reference axis can be expressed as (0,–6, L/2 – 4) cm, where L is the length of the rod (Figure 1). In empirical studies, healthy young adults have wielded handheld rods, with wielding restricted to rotations (shaking or swinging) around the wrist. In conditions in which the rods were unseen, participants recorded nearly perfect judgments of rod length (e.g., Solomon & Turvey, 1988). Many studies have found that judged rod length is strongly correlated with the major principle moment (or major eigenvalue) of the inertia tensor of each rod (e.g., Carello, Thuot, Anderson, & Turvey, 1999; Turvey & Carello, 1995). Factors such as rod density and diameter have little or no influence on judgments of rod length (Solomon & Turvey). However, judgments of rod length can be influenced by other factors, such as static moment and mass (Kingma, Beek, & van Dieën, 2002). In the present study, we did not attempt to distinguish between different sources of information that might be useful in perceiving rod length. Rather, we asked how judgments of rod length might be influenced by properties of the participants who took part in the experiment. Age and Dynamic Touch Aging is related to a variety of changes in both perceptual and motor abilities (e.g., Birren, Woods, & Williams, 1980). Aging brings about declines in the skin's spatial acuity (Stevens, 1992) and sensitivity to vibration (Kenshalo, 1986) that are thought to arise from changes in the distribution density and morphology of mechanoreceptors within the skin (Bolton, Winkelman, & Dyck, 1966; Cauna, 1965; Corso, 1981). Given these effects, we might expect that age would bring about substantial degradation of the ability to perceive rod length by means of wielding. Carello, Thout, and Turvey (2000) found that age did influence the perception of rod length through dynamic wielding. However, the age effect was less than might have been expected on the basis of known age-related changes in the skin. In the absence of vision, both younger and older participants reliably distinguished rod length. The influence of age appeared only in a significant interaction between age and rod length. Judgments of younger and older participants differed only for longer rods. This interaction cannot readily be explained in terms of age-related changes in sensitivity of the skin. Age Versus Experience In the present study, we did not attempt to understand the physiological basis of the Age × Rod length interaction reported by Carello and colleagues (2000). Rather, we sought to determine whether the effects reported by them were related to aging, as such, or might have their origin in other factors. Older individuals have lived longer than younger persons, but they also often have had more experience than younger persons. Operationally, we define aging in terms of chronological age, and experience in terms of the number of years in which participants have participated in a given activity. Experience can include training, observation of practice, as well as direct participation An individual can be elderly yet have little or no experience with a given activity, whereas a much younger person may have much more extensive experience with the same activity. In the present study, we sought to differentiate between possible effects of aging and experience on the perception of rod length by means of manual wielding. Dynamic touch can be influenced by variations in experience among same-age individuals. Hove, Riley, and Shockley (2006) asked novice and experienced young-adult ice hockey players to look at and bimanually wield a set of hockey sticks. Participants were then asked to choose a stick best suited for a power shot (transferring maximal force), or for a precision shot (intercepting a moving object). Judgments were made before and after brief experience using each stick to make both power and precision shots. Among experienced players, the initial judgments were accurate, as were judgments following brief practice. Among novices, initial judgments were inaccurate, and judgment accuracy was significantly improved after brief practice. The findings of these researchers contrast with those of Carello and colleagues (1999), who asked novice and expert tennis players to identify the “sweet spot” (i.e., the center of percussion) of tennis rackets. Participants wielded rackets in the absence of vision. The judgments of novice and expert tennis players did not differ (and were accurate for both groups). The studies of Hove and associates and Carello and colleagues yielded contrasting results with respect to the influence of experience on dynamic touch. However, both sets of researchers used only young adults as participants. Thus, previous studies covaried the effects of age and experience. It was our purpose in the present study to disentangle these two effects. We asked participants to wield rods of different lengths and to judge the length of each rod. In Experiment 1, we assessed the effect of chronological age on length perception, in a situation in which participants could freely wield the rods but could not see them. On the basis of the results of Carello and colleagues (2000), we predicted that judgments of rod length would be positively correlated with actual rod length for both young and older adults. We also expected to replicate the Age × Rod Length interaction that was found by those researchers. In Experiment 2, we crossed age and experience and assessed both participants' skill level and years of playing racquet sports, and we used this information to create groups of novices and experts. We expected that estimates of rod length would be positively correlated with actual length for all participants, but that experience would have an effect on length judgments that was independent of any effect of age. Experiment 1 Carello and colleagues (2000) demonstrated an effect of age on dynamic touch. However, participants in their study were asked to judge the location of the center of percussion of tennis rackets, and they were not asked to judge racket length as such. In Experiment 1, we asked whether young and elderly adults would differ in rod length perception. We expected to replicate the effects of Carello and colleagues. Specifically, we expected that there would be a strong positive correlation between judgments and actual rod length for both age groups, and that there would be a significant Age × Rod Length interaction, as older participants, relative to younger participants, would underestimate the lengths of longer rods. Methods Participants There were 7 undergraduates (age = 24.4 ± 3.8 years; 2 male, 5 female) and 7 older adults (age = 67.7 ± 2.9 years, 2 male, 5 female) who served as volunteer participants. We recruited the older group from a local folk dance club that was active on a daily basis. The average number of years of education was 13.5 years for the young group and 9 years for the old group. All of the participants were generally healthy and active, with no prior history of motor disorders and normal mobility in their dominant arm. All had normal or corrected normal vision. Recruitment procedures were approved by our Institutional Review Board. We assessed hand grip strength (HGS) with no reliable differences between groups; correlations between the perceived length and HGS of the young adults and the older adults were also not statistically significant. Apparatus We placed a 220 cm long, 60 cm wide, and 5 cm high acrylic fiber device with a rope-and-pulley system on a 180 cm × 90 cm table, 75 cm high. We attached a 30 cm × 22 cm × 0.3 cm plastic board to the rope-and-pulley system, so that the board could be moved by a two-way motor-driven switch. The velocity of the rope-and-pulley system was 2.25 cm/s. An opaque curtain prevented participants from viewing their wielding arm. Participants sat on a chair with an armrest at their dominant hand side. A slit in a curtain placed in front of their shoulder allowed each participant to put their arm through the curtain while masking their view. The experimental setup is illustrated in Figure 2. Materials We used five oak rods, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 cm in length, in this study; they weighed 25.72, 38.83, 51.06, 65.06, and 75.70 g, respectively. To ensure the reliability of the results, we knew that the mass difference between the rods had to be in excess of just noticeable differences for all groups (Kingma et al., 2002). According to Weber (1834/1996), the ratio of the smallest detectable increment to the initial intensity of a stimulus is a constant (Weber's fraction). Weber's fraction ranges from 0.08 to 0.12 for objects weighing 50 g to 400 g (Ross & Brodie, 1987). If Weber's fraction equaled 0.12, then the smallest detectable increments of mass for the lightest (25.72 g) and the heaviest (75.7 g) rods would be 3.09 g and 9.08 g. In the present study the actual weight difference between rods was 12.8 g and was above threshold. The rods were of uniform cylindricality (radius 0.635 cm) and density (0.676 g/cm3). Procedure Each participant sat facing the adjustable plastic board. One end of a rod was placed in the participant's dominant hand, and she or he was instructed to grip the rod firmly, with the proximal end flush with the back of the hand. Participants were instructed to not use their fingers to move the rod and not to allow it to bounce in the hand. The forearm was to remain firmly on the armrest with the wielding motion restricted to motions of the hand, with the wrist acting as the pivot point. Participants were asked to estimate the perceived length of the rod by positioning the plastic board to a point coincident with where the rod would touch the surface of the plastic board. Participants could wield the rod for as long as needed to be confident in their judgments. No practice feedback was given during the experiment. Each rod was presented six times in a random order, generating 30 trials for each participant. Data Analysis The dependent variables were perceived length (Lp) in centimeters, root mean square of percent error in rod length (RMS%), and variability of percent error in rod length (VE%). A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the differences between the groups on each dependent variable. Results and Discussion Length Perception The data are summarized in Table 1.<--CO?2--> Overall, the means of Lp increased as La ( where La is the actual length of the rod) increased. Comparing the means of Lp with La, we found that scores for the young adults were higher for the longer rods whereas scores for the older adults were lower. A 2 (age) × 5 (rod length) mixed ANOVA with the last factor as the repeated measure revealed a significant main effect of rod length, F(4, 48) = 498.38, p <.001, η2 =.98, indicating that participants distinguished different rods. The main effect of age was not significant. The Age × Rod Length interaction was also significant, F(4, 48) = 7.67, p <.001, η2 =.39. As one can see in Table 1, the younger adults overestimated the longer rods, whereas the older adults tended to underestimate them. When we plotted Lp against La by using double logarithmic coordinates, the ratio of the log Lp to La approached 1/3 in both age groups, which is consistent with the findings of Solomon and Turvey (1988). For the younger group, ratios ranged from 0.38 to 0.39; for the older group, ratios ranged from 0.36 to 0.38. Accuracy A 2 (age) × 5 (rod length) mixed ANOVA on RMS% produced a significant effect for length, F(4, 48) = 3.68, p <.05, η2 =.24; participants perceived different rods at different accuracy levels. The main effect of age and the Age × Rod Length interaction were not significant. Consistency A 2 (age) × 5 (rod length) mixed ANOVA on VE% revealed that the main effect of age and the main effect of rod length were not significant. However, the Age × Rod Length interaction was significant, F(4, 48) = 2.76, p <.05, η2 =.19. The main effect of length for the older group was significant, F(4, 48) = 2.82, p <.05, indicating that consistency was different for different rods. The effects of age and of length were not significant. The results of Experiment 1 were consistent with the prediction that both the young and older adults would perceive rod length by wielding. Young and older adults perceived longer rods differently, and these differences increased as rod length increased. Our data were also consistent with the data in the study by Carello and colleagues (2000) study. Younger adults overestimated and older adults underestimated the longer rods. Accuracy levels between the young and elderly adults were not different, but the young adults were more consistent than the older adults were for the 30-cm-rod conditions. The results of Experiment 1 provided an empirical basis for crossing the effects of age and experience, which was the focus of Experiment 2. Experiment 2 In Experiment 2, we crossed age and experience. We recruited varsity-level tennis and badminton players for the young, experienced (YE) group, whereas long-term recreational tennis and badminton players comprised the old, experienced (OE) group. On the basis of the work by Carello and colleagues (1999), we might expect that judgments of object length would not be predicated on age or skill level. However, considering the contribution of experience (Hove et al., 2006), we predicted that skill level would be a modifying factor for age-related differences on length perception. Methods Participants We recruited 32 healthy adults as participants. The YE group comprised 8 varsity-level badminton or tennis players (5 male, 3 female; age = 22.57 ± 2.92 years, with an average of 9.90 years of playing experience). The young, novice (YN) group comprised 8 undergraduates (2 male, 6 female; age = 20.43 ± 0.28 years). The OE group comprised 8 adults who had been active in recreational badminton or tennis players for at least 5 years (2 male, 6 female; age = 60.47 ± 3.72 years, with an average of 17.6 years of play). Finally, the older, novice (ON) group comprised 8 older adults (2 male, 6 female; age = 63.87 ± 3.13 years). Members of the ON group reported being active in dance, yoga, and Tai Chi on a regular basis. The education levels for the four groups in Experiment 2 were as follows: For the YE group, the level of years of education was 14.25 ± 0.46 years; for the YN group it was 15 ± 1.07 years; for the OE group it was 13.13 ± 3.68 years, and for the ON group it was 10.75 ± 4.27 years. Surgery on one participant in the ON group precluded an assessment of HGS. The correlation coefficients between Lp and HGS for the YE, YN, OE, and ON groups (r = −.37, −.11,.50, and.73, respectively) were not significant. Materials We used five fir rods, which were 35, 50, 65, 80, and 95 cm in length; they weighed 17.31 g, 24.73 g, 32.15 g, 39.56 g, and 46.98 g, respectively. The rods were uniformly cylindrical with a uniform radius (0.5 cm). Weber's fraction means computed for the YE, YN, OE, and ON groups were 0.11, 0.09, 0.17, and 0.13, respectively. If Weber's fraction equaled 0.17, then the smallest detectable increment of mass for the lightest (17.31 g) and the heaviest (46.98 g) rods were 2.94 g and 7.99 g. The actual weight difference between the rods was 7.42 g in Experiment 2 and thus was above the discriminative thresholds of the 35-cm, 50-cm, 65-cm, and 80-cm rods, but close to that of the 95-cm rod. Procedure Procedures were essentially the same as those in Experiment 1, except that each of the five rods was presented five times in random order, yielding 25 trials. Results and Discussion Length Perception The data are summarized in Table 2.<--CO?3--> Overall, the means of Lp increased as rod length increased. Mean Lp was greater for the YE and OE groups than for the YN and ON groups. A 2 (age) × 2 (experience) × 5 (length) mixed ANOVA with the last factor as the repeated measure revealed a significant main effect of rod length, F(4, 112) = 304.62, p <.001, η2 =.92. The main effect of experience was significant, F(1, 28) = 12.55, p <.05, η2 =.31, as was the Length × Experience interaction, F(4, 112) = 19.35, p <.001, η2 =.41. The main effect of age was not significant, and the Age × Rod Length interaction was not significant, F(4, 112) = 1.02, p >.05. Accuracy A 2 (age) × 2 (experience) × 5 (length) mixed ANOVA on RMS% with the last factor as the repeated measure revealed a significant main effect of age, F(1, 28) = 4.49, p <.05, η2 =.14; overall, older adults (M = 16.60, SD = 10.22) were more accurate than the young adults (M = 24.22, SD = 15.62). The main effect of experience was also significant, F(1, 28) = 11.32, p <.01, η2 =.29; experienced players (M = 14.35) were more accurate than nonplayers (M = 26.47). The main effect of rod length was not significant, F(4, 112) = 1.40, p >.05. There were no significant interactions. Consistency A 2 (age) × 2 (experience) × 5 (length) mixed ANOVA on VE% with the last factor as the repeated measure revealed a significant main effect of rod length, F(4, 112) = 4.96, p <.01, η2 =.15. Participants perceived different rods with different consistency levels. The main effects of age and experience were not significant, and there were no significant interactions. The results of Experiment 2 supported our prediction that the influence of experience would be stronger than the influence of age. Experienced players' estimates were more accurate than those of nonplayers, and this accuracy differential increased as rod length increased. Experienced players were more sensitive to changes in rod length, suggesting that experience facilitated perceptual accuracy (cf. Hove et al., 2006). General Discussion In each experiment, young and older adults used dynamic touch to accurately perceive object length. This was true despite variations in age (Experiment 1), and in both age and experience (Experiment 2). In Experiment 2, we partitioned the effect of experience from age on length perception. The results of Experiment 2 indicated that experience had a greater effect than age on judgments of rod length. The Influence of Experience on Length Perception The present study demonstrates that experienced racquet sport players were more accurate than nonplayers in perceiving object length by means of wielding. In addition to eye–hand coordination, racquet sport players rely heavily on haptic perception. It is likely that frequent practice can facilitate the perception of object length. Following previous studies (e.g., Carello et al., 2000; Solomon & Turvey, 1988), we assessed perceived length in terms of participants' judgments about how far they could reach with a given object. Consistent with previous studies (Adolph, & Avolio; 2000; Hove et al., 2006; Mark, Balliett, Craver, Douglas, & Fox, 1990), experience has been shown to influence perceptual sensitivity to participants' action capabilities. Our results extend the existing literature by demonstrating that the perception of object length (in terms of action capabilities) can be influenced by variations in experience over the long term; in this case, over many years. The experience effects that we observed differ from the findings of Carello and colleagues (1999), who reported no differences between YN and YE tennis players in perceiving object length. They suggested that length perception was a basic capability of dynamic touch and did not require specialized experiences. However, their study included only young participants. By omitting age as a factor, Carello and colleagues (1999) perhaps underestimated the influence of experience. An influence of experience among older participants was observed by Lobjois, Benguigui, and Bertsch (2005), who found that judgments about coincidence timing were more accurate in older adults who stay engaged in activities that have such task demands, compared with older adults not engaged in such activities. Relative Effects of Age and Experience In Experiment 1, judgments of rod length appeared to be influenced by participants' chronological age. However, when we independently varied age and experience, we found that experience was more important than age. In Experiment 2, age influenced the accuracy of judgments (in terms of RMS error), but it did not influence mean judged rod lengths or the consistency of judgments. By contrast, experience influenced not only the accuracy of judgments but also judgment means and the consistency of judgments. Critically, interactions involving rod length were observed for experience but not for age. Thus, it seems likely that the Age × Rod Length interactions observed in Experiment 1, and in Carello and colleagues (2000), were confounded by the effect of experience. How Does Experience Influence Judgments? What can account for the experience effects that we observed? One possibility is that experience led to a change in the stimulus variable(s) on which participants based their judgments (e.g., Smith, Flach, Stanard, & Dittman, 2001). The experience effects we observed may reflect calibration, for example, scaling inertial differences to length differences. There might also be an effect of attunement, such as increasing sensitivity to the inertial quantity most specific to length (Withagen & Michaels, 2005). Another contributing factor could be experienced-related variations in arm strength. Carello and colleagues (2000) offered this possibility as an explanation of the interaction between age and rod length in their study. If arm strength is related to experience with racket sports, as well as to chronological age, then a similar effect could account for both the age and experience effects observed in the present study. Conclusion The ecological approach to perception and action seeks reference frames that can be used to scale the environment in a way that is relevant to perception and action (Oudejans, Michaels, Bakker, & Dolne, 1996). In our study, the reference frames for length perception by dynamic touch were extended beyond the kinematic characteristics (Fitzpatrick, Carello, & Turvey, 1994; Solomon & Turvey, 1988) to participant characteristics. Future research should focus on the nature of participant experiences that lead to experience-based changes in judgments. It would also be useful to investigate the role of arm strength. Regular and continuous participation in physical activity improves the functional capacity and quality of life of elderly persons (Mazzeo et al., 1998). Our results suggest that participation in skillful motor activities may help to sustain functional coordination and control, including sensitivity to and accuracy of dynamic touch. Decision Editor: Thomas M. Hess, PhD, D Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Schematic plot of the hand–rod system (CM = center of mass) Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Schematic plot of the hand–rod system (CM = center of mass) Figure 2. Open in new tabDownload slide Experimental setup: An acrylic fiber device with a plastic board attached on a rope-and-pulley system was placed on a table. Participants sat on a chair, and their dominant arm was shielded by a black curtain. Rod length was determined by positioning the board to a point where the rod just touched the surface of the board Figure 2. Open in new tabDownload slide Experimental setup: An acrylic fiber device with a plastic board attached on a rope-and-pulley system was placed on a table. Participants sat on a chair, and their dominant arm was shielded by a black curtain. Rod length was determined by positioning the board to a point where the rod just touched the surface of the board Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of the Perceived Length in Younger and Older Adults in Experiment 1. . Perceived Length . . . . Young: . Old: . . Actual Length . M (SD) . M (SD) . M (SD) . 30 28.38 (6.64) 27.51 (6.96) 27.95 (6.55) 45 44.59 (7.33) 38.51 (9.78) 41.55 (8.88) 60 62.65 (8.50) 53.60 (10.51) 58.13 (10.31) 75 80.55 (7.85) 67.42 (11.30) 73.98 (11.57) 90 98.66 (7.41) 81.89 (10.68) 90.28 (12.40) M (SD) 62.96 (26.31) 53.79 (21.88) . Perceived Length . . . . Young: . Old: . . Actual Length . M (SD) . M (SD) . M (SD) . 30 28.38 (6.64) 27.51 (6.96) 27.95 (6.55) 45 44.59 (7.33) 38.51 (9.78) 41.55 (8.88) 60 62.65 (8.50) 53.60 (10.51) 58.13 (10.31) 75 80.55 (7.85) 67.42 (11.30) 73.98 (11.57) 90 98.66 (7.41) 81.89 (10.68) 90.28 (12.40) M (SD) 62.96 (26.31) 53.79 (21.88) Note: Lengths are shown in centimeters. SD = standard deviation. Open in new tab Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of the Perceived Length in Younger and Older Adults in Experiment 1. . Perceived Length . . . . Young: . Old: . . Actual Length . M (SD) . M (SD) . M (SD) . 30 28.38 (6.64) 27.51 (6.96) 27.95 (6.55) 45 44.59 (7.33) 38.51 (9.78) 41.55 (8.88) 60 62.65 (8.50) 53.60 (10.51) 58.13 (10.31) 75 80.55 (7.85) 67.42 (11.30) 73.98 (11.57) 90 98.66 (7.41) 81.89 (10.68) 90.28 (12.40) M (SD) 62.96 (26.31) 53.79 (21.88) . Perceived Length . . . . Young: . Old: . . Actual Length . M (SD) . M (SD) . M (SD) . 30 28.38 (6.64) 27.51 (6.96) 27.95 (6.55) 45 44.59 (7.33) 38.51 (9.78) 41.55 (8.88) 60 62.65 (8.50) 53.60 (10.51) 58.13 (10.31) 75 80.55 (7.85) 67.42 (11.30) 73.98 (11.57) 90 98.66 (7.41) 81.89 (10.68) 90.28 (12.40) M (SD) 62.96 (26.31) 53.79 (21.88) Note: Lengths are shown in centimeters. SD = standard deviation. Open in new tab Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation of Perceived Length of the Rods in Four Different Groups in Experiment 2. . Rod Length (cm) . . . . . . Group . 35 . 50 . 65 . 80 . 95 . M (SD) . Young     Player 34.00 (4.36) 51.00 (8.83) 68.45 (12.15) 83.09 (18.94) 106.14 (25.08) 68.54 (29.37)     Nonplayer 28.12 (8.01) 38.40 (12.50) 46.28 (14.62) 55.77 (18.88) 66.17 (23.20) 46.94 (20.44) Old     Player 35.55 (5.12) 48.25 (8.06) 62.05 (6.17) 76.44 (6.86) 93.44 (6.10) 63.15 (21.56)     Nonplayer 34.38 (8.41) 44.98 (9.98) 55.17 (12.67) 65.61 (15.12) 73.73 (14.86) 54.77 (18.52) M (SD) 33.01 (7.02) 45.66 (10.62) 57.98 (14.02) 70.23 (18.33) 84.87 (24.08) . Rod Length (cm) . . . . . . Group . 35 . 50 . 65 . 80 . 95 . M (SD) . Young     Player 34.00 (4.36) 51.00 (8.83) 68.45 (12.15) 83.09 (18.94) 106.14 (25.08) 68.54 (29.37)     Nonplayer 28.12 (8.01) 38.40 (12.50) 46.28 (14.62) 55.77 (18.88) 66.17 (23.20) 46.94 (20.44) Old     Player 35.55 (5.12) 48.25 (8.06) 62.05 (6.17) 76.44 (6.86) 93.44 (6.10) 63.15 (21.56)     Nonplayer 34.38 (8.41) 44.98 (9.98) 55.17 (12.67) 65.61 (15.12) 73.73 (14.86) 54.77 (18.52) M (SD) 33.01 (7.02) 45.66 (10.62) 57.98 (14.02) 70.23 (18.33) 84.87 (24.08) Note: SD = standard deviation. Open in new tab Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation of Perceived Length of the Rods in Four Different Groups in Experiment 2. . Rod Length (cm) . . . . . . Group . 35 . 50 . 65 . 80 . 95 . M (SD) . Young     Player 34.00 (4.36) 51.00 (8.83) 68.45 (12.15) 83.09 (18.94) 106.14 (25.08) 68.54 (29.37)     Nonplayer 28.12 (8.01) 38.40 (12.50) 46.28 (14.62) 55.77 (18.88) 66.17 (23.20) 46.94 (20.44) Old     Player 35.55 (5.12) 48.25 (8.06) 62.05 (6.17) 76.44 (6.86) 93.44 (6.10) 63.15 (21.56)     Nonplayer 34.38 (8.41) 44.98 (9.98) 55.17 (12.67) 65.61 (15.12) 73.73 (14.86) 54.77 (18.52) M (SD) 33.01 (7.02) 45.66 (10.62) 57.98 (14.02) 70.23 (18.33) 84.87 (24.08) . Rod Length (cm) . . . . . . Group . 35 . 50 . 65 . 80 . 95 . M (SD) . Young     Player 34.00 (4.36) 51.00 (8.83) 68.45 (12.15) 83.09 (18.94) 106.14 (25.08) 68.54 (29.37)     Nonplayer 28.12 (8.01) 38.40 (12.50) 46.28 (14.62) 55.77 (18.88) 66.17 (23.20) 46.94 (20.44) Old     Player 35.55 (5.12) 48.25 (8.06) 62.05 (6.17) 76.44 (6.86) 93.44 (6.10) 63.15 (21.56)     Nonplayer 34.38 (8.41) 44.98 (9.98) 55.17 (12.67) 65.61 (15.12) 73.73 (14.86) 54.77 (18.52) M (SD) 33.01 (7.02) 45.66 (10.62) 57.98 (14.02) 70.23 (18.33) 84.87 (24.08) Note: SD = standard deviation. Open in new tab References Adolph, K. E., Avolio, A. M. ( 2000 ). Walking infants adapt locomotion to changing body dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 26 , 1148 -1166. Amazeen, E. L., Turvey, M. T. ( 1996 ). Weight perception and the haptic size-weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 22 , 213 -232. Birren, J. E., Woods, A. M., Williams, M. V. ( 1980 ). Behavioral slowing with age: Causes, organization and consequences. In L. W. Poon (Ed.), Aging in the 1980's (pp. 293–308). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Bolton, C. F., Winkelman, M. D., Dyck, P. J. ( 1966 ). A quantitative study of Meissner's corpuscles in man. Neurology , 16 , 1 -9. Carello, C., Turvey, M. T. ( 2004 ). Physics and the psychology of muscle sense. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 13 , 25 -28. Carello, C., Thuot, S., Anderson, K. L., Turvey, M. T. ( 1999 ). Perceiving the sweet spot. Perception , 28 , 307 -320. Carello, C., Thuot, S., Turvey, M. T. ( 2000 ). Aging and the perception of a racquet's sweet spot. Human Movement Science , 19 , 1 -20. Cauna, N. ( 1965 ). The effects of aging on the receptor organs of the human dermis. In W. Montagna (Ed.), Advances in biology of skin: Aging (Vol. 6). New York: Pergamon Press. Chan, T. C. ( 1995 ). The effect of density and diameter on haptic perception of rod length. Perception and Psychophysics , 57 , 778 -786. Corso, J. F. ( 1981 ). Aging sensory systems and perception. New York: Praeger. Enoka, R. M. ( 2002 ). Neuromechanics of human movement (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Fitzpatrick, P., Carello, C., Turvey, M. T. ( 1994 ). Eigenvalues of the inertia tensor and exteroception by the “muscular sense.”. Neuroscience , 60 , 551 -568. Gibson, E. J., Pick, A. D. ( 2000 ). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Gibson, J. J. ( 1962 ). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review , 69 , 477 -491. Gibson, J. J. ( 1966 ). The senses considered as perceptual system. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gibson, J. J. ( 1986 ). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1979). Goldstein, H. ( 1980 ). Classical mechanics. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley. Howell, D. C. ( 2002 ). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. Hove, P., Riley, M. A., Shockley, K. ( 2006 ). Perceiving affordances of hockey sticks by dynamic touch. Ecological Psychology , 18 ,(3), 163 -189. Kenshalo, D. R. ( 1986 ). Somesthetic sensitivity in young and elderly humans. Journal of Gerontology , 41 , 732 -742. Kingma, I., Beek, P. J., van Dieën, J. H. ( 2002 ). The inertia tensor versus static movement and mass in perceiving length and heaviness of hand wielded rods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 28 , 180 -191. Konczak, J. ( 1994 ). Effects of optic flow on the kinematics of human gait: A comparison of young and older adults. Journal of Motor Behavior , 26 , 225 -236. Konczak, J., Meeuwsen, H. J., Cress, M. E. ( 1992 ). Changing affordances in stair climbing: The perception of maximum climbability in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 18 , 691 -697. Lobjois, R., Benguigui, N., Bertsch, J. ( 2005 ). Aging and tennis playing in a coincidence-timing task with an accelerating object: The role of visuomotor delay. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 76 , 398 -406. Mark, L. S., Balliett, J., Craver, K., Douglas, S. D., Fox, T. ( 1990 ). What an actor must do to perceive the affordance for sitting. Ecological Psychology , 2 , 325 -366. Mazzeo, R. S., Cavanagh, P., Evans, W. J., Fiatarone, M., Hagberg, J., McAuley, E., et al. ( 1998 ). ACSM position stand: Exercise and physical activity for older adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise , 30 , 992 -1008. Oudejans, R. R. D., Michaels, C. F., Bakker, F. C., Dolne, M. A. ( 1996 ). The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: Perception of catchableness of fly balls. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 22 , 879 -891. Pijpers, J. R., Oudejans, R. R. D., Bakker, F. C., Beek, P. J. ( 2006 ). The role of anxiety in perceiving and realizing affordances. Ecological Psychology , 18 ,(3), 131 -161. Ross, H. E., Brodie, E. E. ( 1987 ). Weber fractions for weight and mass as a function of stimulus intensity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 39A , 77 -88. Smith, M. R. H., Flach, J. M., Stanard, T. W., Dittman, S. M. ( 2001 ). Optical bases for controlling the timing of collisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 27 , 395 -410. Solomon, H. Y., Turvey, M. T. ( 1988 ). Haptically perceiving the distances reachable with hand-held objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 14 , 404 -427. Stevens, J. C. ( 1992 ). Aging and spatial acuity of touch. Journal of Gerontology , 47 , 35 -40. Thornbury, J., Mistretta, C. M. ( 1981 ). Tactile sensitivity as a function of age. Gerontology , 36 , 34 -39. Stroop, M., Turvey, M. T., Fitzpatrick, P., Carello, C. ( 2000 ). Inertial tensor and weight-percept models of length perception by static holding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 26 , 1133 -1147. Turvey, M. T., Solomon, H. Y., Burton, G. ( 1989 ). An ecological analysis of knowing by wielding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 52 , 387 -407. Turvey, M. T., Carello, C. ( 1995 ). Dynamic touch. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers, Handbook of Perception and cognition, Vol. 5: Perception of space and motion (pp. 401–490). New York: Academic Press. Turvey, M. T. ( 1996 ). Dynamic touch. American Psychologist , 51 , 1134 -1152. van Wegen, E. E. H., van Emmerik, R. E. A., Riccio, G. E. ( 2002 ). Postural orientation: Age-related changes in variability and time-to-boundary. Human Movement Science , 21 , 61 -84. Warren, W. H., Blackwell, A. W., Morris, M. W. ( 1989 ). Age differences in perceiving the direction of self-motion from optical flow. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences , 44 , P147 -P153. Weber, E. H. ( 1996 ). De Tactu, annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae [Of touch, anatomical and physiological annotations]. Leipzig: Koehler. In H. E. Ross & D. J. Murray (Eds.), E. H. Weber on the Tactile Senses. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1834). Withagen, R., Michaels, C. F. ( 2005 ). The role of feedback information for calibration and attunement in perceiving length by dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 31 , 1379 -1390. Copyright 2008 by The Gerontological Society of America
TI - Length Perception by Dynamic Touch: The Effects of Aging and Experience
JO - The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
DO - 10.1093/geronb/63.3.P165
DA - 2008-05-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/length-perception-by-dynamic-touch-the-effects-of-aging-and-experience-nlPB7orauU
SP - P165
VL - 63
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -