Apparent Sizes of Different Shapes and the Facility with which they can be identified

Fisher, Gerald H.; Foster, Jeremy J.

doi:10.1038/219653c0

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies showed that the largest biases occurred when the area of triangles was compared with that of circles. The overestimation of the triangles ranged from 14% to 28% (Anastasi, 1936;Fisher & Foster, 1968;Warren & Pinneau, 1955). These visual biases are larger than the average haptic surface area bias of 9%, which was measured in the present experiment for a tetrahedron-sphere comparison.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Previous studies in the visual domain have shown that the shape of figures has an influence on their apparent area (e.g., Anastasi, 1936;Anderson & Cuneo, 1978;Fisher & Foster, 1968;Warren & Pinneau, 1955). These studies showed that the largest biases occurred when the area of triangles was compared with that of circles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…This almost unbiased haptic perception of 3-D objects' surface area differs from visual 2-D area perception, which is influenced by the geometry of figures (e.g., Anastasi, 1936;Anderson & Cuneo, 1978;Fisher & Foster, 1968;Warren & Pinneau, 1955).…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 94%

“…It has been shown that triangles are perceived to be larger than circles and squares (e.g., Anastasi, 1936;Fisher & Foster, 1968;Warren & Pinneau, 1955). Furthermore, some studies have concluded that a square is perceived to be larger than a circle (Anastasi, 1936), whereas others concluded the reverse (Fisher & Foster, 1968) or even showed no differences (Warren & Pinneau, 1955).…”

Section: Experiments 2 Surface Area Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Haptic perception of volume and surface area of 3-D objects

Kahrimanovic

Tiest

Kappers

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Haptic perception of volume (Experiment 1) and surface area (Experiment 2) was studied with tetrahedrons, cubes, and spheres as stimuli (2-14 cm 3 ). The results of Experiment 1 showed that subjects perceived a tetrahedron to be larger in volume than either a cube or a sphere of the same physical volume and that they perceived a cube to be larger than a sphere. This pattern was independent of object size. The biases were smaller in conditions with mass information than in those without. The average biases in the different conditions ranged from 7% to 67%. Analyses revealed that the subjects apparently based their volume judgments on the surface area of objects. Experiment 2 showed that surface area itself could be perceived accurately, almost independently of the objects' shape. Experiment 3 investigated volume perception of objects in the absence of surface area (wire-frame objects) and showed larger biases than those observed with solid objects. With wire-frame objects, the maximal distance between two vertex points was probably the dimension on which the volume judgment was based. In conclusion, haptic volume perception of geometric objects has to be inferred from other object properties, but surface area can be perceived unbiased.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Experiments 2 Surface Area Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Haptic perception of volume and surface area of 3-D objects

Kahrimanovic

Tiest

Kappers

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Geometrical figures have been used as stimuli (Anastasi, 1936;Warren & Pinneau, 1955;Fisher & Foster, 1968;Holmberg & Wahlin, 1969;Smets, 1970) as well as non-geometric figures generated by essentially random procedures (Hitchcock, Brown, Michels, & Spiritoso, 1962;Smith, 1969). Geometrical figures have been used as stimuli (Anastasi, 1936;Warren & Pinneau, 1955;Fisher & Foster, 1968;Holmberg & Wahlin, 1969;Smets, 1970) as well as non-geometric figures generated by essentially random procedures (Hitchcock, Brown, Michels, & Spiritoso, 1962;Smith, 1969).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking of Apparent Area for Different Shapes of Equal Area

Martinez¹,

Dawson²

1973

Perceptual and Motor Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

St~mmasy.-36 figures of equal area but different form made up six form classes: triangles, quadrilarerals, polygons, ellipses, stars and irregular figures. 24 students presented with each set one at a time were asked to rank the figures from largest to smallest in perceived area. Next these Ss ranked sets including figures from the different shape classes, the sets being formed on the basis of ranks in the first task. Kendall's W and Friedman's x.' were significant for rankings within all sets suggesting consistent and differentiated influences of form on apparent area. Significant negative correlations between figure perimeter and ranks of estimated area in Exp. 1 and their absence in Exp. 2 suggested perimeter is related to apparent area with only certain sets of figures.

show abstract

Flawed stimulus design in additive-area heuristic studies

Park

2022

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a series of recently published studies purportedly on the "additive-area heuristic," Yousif & Keil (2019; argue for a systematic distortion in the perception of the cumulative area of an item array and further claim that previous findings of numerical cognition and magnitude perception in general are "at risk" (Yousif & Keil, 2021). This commentary describes serious stimulus design flaws present in all of Yousif and colleagues experiments that prevent from making such conclusions. Specifically, item arrays used in those studies demonstrate a skewed correlational structure between selected magnitude dimensions and exhibit unbalanced ranges across different magnitude dimensions of interest. Because the perception of magnitude dimensions interferes one another and because our perceptual system is sensitive to the statistical regularities of the sensory input, such a biased design makes it difficult, if not impossible, to interpret the choice behavior of an observer making magnitude judgments. By re-introducing the mathematical framework for a systematic construction of dot array stimuli (DeWind et al., 2015) and by re-analyzing the data from another recent study on area perception (Tomlinson et al., 2020), this paper explains-and introduces a MATLAB code for-an optimal method for designing and constructing dot arrays for magnitude perception studies.

show abstract

Apparent Sizes of Different Shapes and the Facility with which they can be identified

Cited by 15 publications

References 3 publications

Haptic perception of volume and surface area of 3-D objects

Haptic perception of volume and surface area of 3-D objects

Ranking of Apparent Area for Different Shapes of Equal Area

Flawed stimulus design in additive-area heuristic studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About