Does who I am and what I feel determine what I see (or say)? A meta-analytic systematic review exploring the influence of real and perceived bodily state on spatial perception of the external environment

Abstract

Background Bodily state is theorised to play a role in perceptual scaling of the environment, whereby low bodily capacity shifts visuospatial perception, with distances appearing farther and hills steeper, and the opposite seen for high bodily capacity. This may play a protective role, where perceptual scaling discourages engaging with the environment when capacity is low. Methodology Our protocol was pre-registered via Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6zya5/) with all amendments to the protocol tracked. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the role of bodily state/capacity on spatial perception measures of the environment. Databases (Medline, PsychINFO, Scopus, Embase, and Emcare) and grey literature were searched systematically, inclusive to 26/8/21. All studies were assessed using a customised Risk of Bias form. Standard mean differences and 95% CIs were calculated via meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Results A total of 8,034 studies were identified from the systematic search. Of these, 68 experiments (3,195 participants) met eligibility and were included in the review. These were grouped into the following categories: fatigue; pain; age; embodiment; body size/body paty size; glucose levels; fitness; and interoception, and interoceptive accuracy. We found low level evidence (limited studies, high risk of bias) for the effect of bodily state on spatial perception. There was consistent evidence that both glucose manipulations and age influence spatial perception of distances and hills in a hypothesised direction (lower capacity associated with increased distance and hill steepness). Mixed evidence exists for the influence of external loads, embodiment, body/body-part size manipulations, pain, and interoceptive accuracy. Evidence for fitness and/or fatigue influencing spatial perception was conflicting; notably, methodological flaws with fitness and fatigue paradigms and heterogenous spatial perception measures may underlie null/conflicting results. Conclusion We found limited evidence for bodily state influencing spatial perception of the environment. That all studies had high risk of bias makes conclusions about reported effects reflecting actual perceptual shifts (vs merely reflecting experimental demands or error due to inadequate study design) pre-emptive. Rigorous evaluation is needed to determine whether reported effects reflect more than bias (e.g., experimental demands, inadequate blinding). Future work using reliable measures of spatial perception, comprehensive evaluation of relevant confounders, and methodologically robust (and experimentally confirmed) bodily state experimental paradigms is warranted.