Sensitivity to changes in dynamic affordances for walking on land and at sea

Autoři: Hannah J. Walter aff001;  Nicolette Peterson aff001;  Ruixuan Li aff001;  Jeffrey B. Wagman aff002;  Thomas A. Stoffregen aff001
Působiště autorů: Affordance Perception-Action Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America aff001;  Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, United States of America aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221974


We investigated the perception of affordances for walking along a narrow path. We asked whether participants could perceive changes in affordances brought about by manipulation of properties of the body, or of the environment, without direct practice of the to-be-perceived affordance, and without external feedback about the accuracy of perception. In Experiment 1, participants made a series of 8 judgments of how far they could walk along a narrow path either, 1) without added weight, 2) while wearing a weighted vest, or 3) while wearing weights on their ankles. Before walking, mean judgments were lower when wearing weights than in the no-weight condition. In addition, in both weight conditions judgments changed across the series of 8 judgments, in the direction of greater accuracy. Control of the body in walking also can be influenced by motion of the ground surface, as commonly happens in vehicles. In Experiment 2, on a ship at sea, we evaluated the effects of walking with or without weight added to the body at the ankles. We again asked participants (experienced maritime crewmembers) to judge how far they could walk along a narrow path, with versus without ankle weights. As in Experiment 1, judgments made before walking mirrored the observed differences in walking performance. In addition, we again found evidence that judgment improved (without walking practice, or feedback) over the series of judgments. We conclude that participants were sensitive to (and spontaneously learned about) how affordances for walking were influenced by changes in the dynamics of body and the environment.

Klíčová slova:

Analysis of variance – Ankles – Feet – Human learning – Legs – Motion – Ships – Walking


1. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1979.

2. Stoffregen TA. Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology, 2003;15: 115–134.

3. Lee DN, Young DS, McLaughlin CM. A roadside simulation of road crossing for children. Ergonom. 1984;27: 1271–1281.

4. Plumert JM, Kearney JK, Cremer JF, Recker KM, Strutt J. Changes in children’s perception–action tuning over short time scales: Bicycling across traffic-filled intersections in a virtual environment. J Exp Child Psychol. 2011;108: 322–337. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.005 20728090

5. Walter H, Wagman JB, Stergiou N, Erkmen N, Stoffregen TA. Dynamic perception of dynamic affordances: Walking on a ship at sea. Exp Brain Res. 2017;235: 517–524. doi: 10.1007/s00221-016-4810-6 27787584

6. Walter HJ, Li R, Wagman JB, Stoffregen TA. Adaptive perception of changes in affordances for walking on a ship at sea. Hum Move Sci. 2019;64: 28–37.

7. Maki B. Gait changes in older adults: predictors of falls or indicators of fear. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45: 313–320. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb00946.x 9063277

8. Wollensen B, Voelcker-Rehage C. Differences in cognitive-motor interference in older adults while walking and performing a visual-verbal Stroop task. Front Aging Neurosci. 2019;10: 426. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00426 30687077

9. Erlandson JM. The archaeology of aquatic adaptions: Paradigms for a new millennium. J Archaeol Res. 2001;9: 287–350.

10. Wertheim A. Working in a moving environment. Ergonom. 1998;41: 1845–1858.

11. Stevens SC, Parsons MG. Effects of motion at sea on crew performance: A survey. Marine Technol. 2002;39: 29–47.

12. Adolph KE, Avolio AM. Walking infants adapt locomotion to changing body dimensions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perf. 2000;26: 1148–1166.

13. Regia-Corte T, Wagman JB. Perception of affordances for standing on an inclined surface depends on height of center of mass. Exp Brain Res. 2008;191: 25–35. doi: 10.1007/s00221-008-1492-8 18663440

14. Mark LS. Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: A study of sitting and stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1987;13: 361–370.

15. Mark LM, Balliet JA, Craver KD, Douglas SD, Fox T. What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance for sitting. Ecol Psychol. 1990;2: 325–366.

16. Stoffregen TA, Yang CM, Bardy BG. Affordance judgments and nonlocomotor body movement. Ecological Psychology, 2005;17: 75–104.

17. Yu Y, Bardy BG, Stoffregen TA. Influences of head and torso movement before and during affordance perception. J Motor Beh. 2011;43: 45–54.

18. Chow DHK, Kwok MLY, Au-Yang ACK, Holmes AD, Cheng JCY, Yao FYD, et al. The effect of backpack load on the gait of normal adolescent girls. Ergonom. 2005;48: 642–656.

19. Cottalorda JA, Rahmani AB, Diop MA, Gautheron VA, Ebermeyer EA, Belli AA. Influence of school bag carrying on gait kinetics. J Orthoped B. 2003;12: 357–364.

20. Hong Y, Brueggemann G. Changes in gait patterns in 10-year-old boys with increasing loads when walking on a treadmill. Gait Pos. 2000;11: 254–259.

21. Li JX, Hong Y, Robinson PD. The effect of load carriage on movement kinematics and respiratory parameters in children during walking. Europ J Appl Physiol. 2003;90: 35–43.

22. Garciaguirre JS, Adolph KE, Shrout PE. Baby carriage: Infants walking with loads. Child Development, 2007;78: 664–680. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01020.x 17381796

23. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4: 863. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 24324449

24. Mayo AM, Wade MG, Stoffregen TA. Postural effects of the horizon on land and at sea. Psychol Sci. 2011;22: 118–124. doi: 10.1177/0956797610392927 21156861

25. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Meth. 2007;39: 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146

26. Hannah Walter; Ruixuan Li; Nicolette Peterson; Thomas Stoffregen; Jeffrey Wagman. (2019). APAL "Sensitivity to changes in dynamic affordances for walking on land and at sea" Data Sets. Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota,

27. Adolph KE. Psychophysical assessment of toddlers’ ability to cope with slopes. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perf. 1995;21: 734–750.

28. Malek EA, Wagman JB. Kinetic potential influences visual and remote haptic perception of affordances for standing on an inclined surface. Quart J Exp Psychol. 2008;61: 1813–1826.

29. Franchak JM, Celano EC, Adolph KE. Perception of passage through openings depends on the size of the body in motion. Exp Brain Res. 2012;223: 301–310. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3261-y 22990292

30. Warren WH, Whang S. Visual guidance of walking through apertures: Body-scaled information for affordances. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1997;13: 371–383.

31. Ramenzoni VC, Riley MA, Shockley K, Davis T. Carrying the height of the world on your ankles: Encumbering observers reduces estimates of how high an actor can jump. Q J Exp Psychol. 2008;61: 1487–1495.

32. Mantel B, Stoffregen TA, Campbell A, Bardy BG. Exploratory movement generates higher-order information that is sufficient for accurate perception of scaled egocentric distance. PLOS ONE, 2015;10(4): e0120025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120025 25856410

33. Hajnal A, Clark JD, Doyon JK, Kelty-Stephen DG. Fractality of body movements predicts perception of affordances: Evidence from stand-on-ability judgments about slopes. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perf. 2014;44: 836–841.

34. Palatinus Z, Kelty-Stephen DG, Kinsella-Shaw J, Carello C, Turvey MT. Haptic perceptual intent in quiet standing affects multifractal scaling of postural fluctuations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 2014;40: 1808–1818.

35. Fajen BR, Matthis JS. Direct perception of action-scaled affordances: The shrinking gap problem. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perf. 2011;37: 1442–1457.

36. Warren WH. Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1984;10: 683–703.

37. Oudejans RRD, Michaels CF, Bakker FC, Dolne M. The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: Perception of catchableness of fly balls. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1996;22: 879–891.

38. Pepping G, Li FX. Changing action capabilities and the perception of affordances. J Hum Move Stud. 2000;39: 115–140.

39. Day BM, Wagman JB, Smith PJK. Perception of maximum stepping and leaping distance: Stepping affordances as a special case of leaping affordances. Acta Psychologica. 2015;158: 26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.03.010 25898112

40. Higuchi T, Cinelli ME, Greig MA, Patla AE. Locomotion through apertures when wider space for locomotion is necessary: Adaptation to artificially altered body states. Exp Brain Res. 2006;175: 50–59. doi: 10.1007/s00221-006-0525-4 16761139

41. Konczak J, Meeuwsen HJ, Cress ME. Changing affordances in stair climbing: The perception of maximum climbability in young and older adults. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perf. 1992;18: 691–697.

42. Snapp-Childs W, Bingham GP. The affordance of barrier crossing in young children exhibits dynamic, not geometric, similarity. Exp Brain Res. 2009;198: 527–533. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-1944-9 19626315

43. Fajen BR. Affordance perception and the visual control of locomotion. In: Steinicke F, Visell Y, Campos J, Lecuyer A, editors. Human Walking in Virtual Environments. New York: Springer. 2013. pp. 79–98.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10