Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant

Holway, Alfred H.; Boring, Edwin G.

doi:10.2307/1417790

Cited by 426 publications

(272 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

243

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It may be that the phenomenon is peculiar to the particular set of patterns used, although some preliminary investigation with actual plane surfaces suggested this was not so; indeed, this result resembles the well-known continuum of judgments of phenomenal regression in relation to the amount of information about distance (Holway & Boring, 1941;Thouless, 1931). Similar results have frequently been reported in the literature (e.g., Clark, Smith, & Rabe, 1956;Attneave, 1969).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Perceptual economy and the impression of visual depth

Vickers

1971

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Perceptual economy and the impression of visual depth

Vickers

1971

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An exponent greater than 1.0 indicates that an overconstancy effect existed for frontal-size productions ( Fig. 1 and Table 2) and this is a common result with Objective instructions (Carlson, 1962;Epstein, 1963;Gilinsky, 1955;Holway & Boring, 1941;Smith, 1953). From Table 2 the amount of overconstancy can be computed by subtracting the obtained exponents from 1.0.…”

Section: Stmentioning

confidence: 92%

Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments

Baird

Biersdorf

1967

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Size-constancy refers to the event that an object of constant physical size is judged to be such, regardless of its location within the three-dimensional physical environment. In the laboratory when size judgments are based upon information received by the visual sense, perfect size-constancy seldom occurs, a result not in keeping with certain functionalist theories of perception (Gibson, 1950; Taylor, 1962). Only a particular combination of instructions, stimulus, and response factors lead to size-constancy (Baird, 1965a;Carlson, 1962;Epstein, 1963), and these results probably can be treated as special cases within a more comprehensive theory (e.g., Akishige, 1961). Before such a theory can be operational, however, several key issues need to be settled. This paper describes some progress toward these prerequisite goals.First, we have extended the range of quantitative data collected for size and distance judgments under Objective instructions and full-cue conditions. The majority of previous results were gathered with a single method on a single value of a dimension such as relative distance or stimulus orientation. We used an extended stimulus series in three conditions. In one situation a relative-size judgment was made between a comparison stimulus at one distance and a standard stimulus at a number of different distances, when both were in a frontal plane. The second situation also involved relative size, but the stimuli were placed flat on a table extending away from the observer and beneath his primary lines of sight. In the third situation ratio estimates of distance along the table were obtained. The same two observers were used in all conditions, and the relative positions of the comparison and standard were varied.Our second concern was theoretical. Since the functionalist theory leading to size-constancy predictions is based upon metric measures of stimuli, and since this approach is inadequate when applied to most data on size and distance, we decided to explore an alternative measure-the subtended visual angle of stimuli at the eye. The task set the observer then is presumed to be the production or estimation of certain visual-angle ratios between the standard and comparison stimuli. The exact ratios depend upon the relative spatial positions of stimuli including their orientation to the eye and ground. Different stimulus and instruction variables require different ratio productions of visual angles. At present we cannot predict exactly which ratio is appropriate for each experimental condition. The important point is that the law of the visual angle is not restricted to a ratio of 1.0 in which the visual angles of the comparison and standard are equal, but is extended to include many other ratios as well.The next step is to defi~e quantitatively the relations among theoretical visual-angle ratios and those actually produced or estimated by observers. When metric measures (arithmetic) are used in graphic plots of theoretical and judged size, the resulting curves are not always linear. It is to our ...

show abstract

“…It generally is accepted that when visual cues to distance are reduced greatly, egocentric distance is misperceived (e.g., Baird, 1970;Da Silva, 1985;Foley, 1977Foley, ,1980Foley & Held, 1972;Gogel, 1974;Holway & Boring, 1941;Kiinnapas, 1968;Philbeck & Loomis, 1997;Sedgwick, 1986). Under "full-cue" conditions, in which a stimulus-rich environment is viewed under good illumination, however, there is little agreement about whether perception is accurate, mainly because of the diversity of findings stemming from different experimental methods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation.

Fukusima¹,

Loomis²,

Silva³

1997

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

129

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two triangulation methods for measuring perceived egocentric distance were examined. In the triangulation-by-pointing procedure, the observer views a target at some distance and, with eyes closed, attempts to point continuously at the target while traversing a path that passes by it. In the triangulation-by-walking procedure, the observer views a target and, with eyes closed, traverses a path that is oblique to the target; on command from the experimenter, the observer turns and walks toward the target. Two experiments using pointing and 3 using walking showed that perceived distance, averaged over observers, was accurate out to 15 m under full-cue conditions. For target distances between 15 and 25 m, the evidence indicates slight perceptual underestimation. Results also show that observers, on average, were accurate in imaginally updating the locations of previously viewed targets.The term visual space (or visually perceived space) refers to a perceptual representation of the immediate physical environment that exists independently of any of the particular spatial behaviors it helps to control. Much vision research has been devoted to establishing the functional properties of visual space and the mechanisms that underlie it. A major goal of such research has been to characterize the mapping from physical to visual space under different conditions of information availability, but ultimately the goal must be to predict visual space solely in terms of its sensory inputs and internal determinants (e.g., intrinsic noise, observer assumptions, etc.).Because visual direction is perceived accurately, most space perception research has examined the perception of egocentric distance (i-e., the distance from the object to the observer) and the perception of exocentric distance (i.e., the distance between two targets lying in the same visual direction or, more generally, the distance between any two locations). Because we believe that the perception of egocentric Gogel, 1977), our focus here is on the former.It generally is accepted that when visual cues to distance are reduced greatly, egocentric distance is misperceived (e.g., Baird, 1970;Da Silva, 1985;Foley, 1977Foley, ,1980Foley & Held, 1972;Gogel, 1974;Holway & Boring, 1941;Kiinnapas, 1968;Philbeck & Loomis, 1997;Sedgwick, 1986). Under "full-cue" conditions, in which a stimulus-rich environment is viewed under good illumination, however, there is little agreement about whether perception is accurate, mainly because of the diversity of findings stemming from different experimental methods. With respect to egocentric distance, much of the research conducted under full-cue conditions suggests that perceived distance is nearly linear in physical distance and appropriately scaled, at least for targets within 20 m (e.g., verbal reports, Da Silva, 1985;Sedgwick, 1986;Teghtsoonian & Teghtsoonian, 1969, 1970 blind walking to previewed targets, Corlett, Patla, & Williams, 1985;Elliott, 1986Elliott, , 1987Elliott, Jones, & Gray, 1990;Loomis, Da Silva, Fujita, & Fukusima, 1992...

show abstract

Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant

Cited by 426 publications

References 0 publications

Perceptual economy and the impression of visual depth

Perceptual economy and the impression of visual depth

Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments

Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About