Directional separation and the size cue to distance

Gogel, Walter C.; Sturm, Richard D.

doi:10.1007/bf00424475

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in accord with those of Gogel (1969c) and Gogel and Sturm (1971) as well as those of Baird (1964). The general pattern of results was that sizes were underestimated, especially for small stimulus objects.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…This effect was restricted, however, even for the small stimuli, by the fact that verbal reports tend to understate greatly either real or simulated large distances (Gogel, 1968(Gogel, , 1969a(Gogel, , 1969b(Gogel, , 1976. This also reflects a limitation on the use of the SDIH as a mathematical expression for predicting effects that are not purely perceptual (Gogel & Sturm, 1971).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is some suggestion of a rough positive correspondence between the judged distances and judged sizes of the stimuli in the absence of instructions, but it is not statistically significant; it should be remembered that size and distance judgments were made by different subjects. Gogel and Sturm (1971) have suggested that such a relation would reflect the operation of a size-distance invariance principle in a purely perceptual situation in which the subject has no "cognitive" size information or impressions.…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Instruction effects on size and distance judgments

Tyer

Allen

Pasnak

1983

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypotheses that size judgments of unfamiliar objects are affected by distance information, and distance judgments by size information, were tested. Subjects made size or distance estimates in a cue-reduced situation, with or without distance or size information, and also made calibrated estimates in full-cue conditions. Size judgments in the no-information condition were correlated with the retinal image, whereas distance information produced size estimates closer to the actual size of the objects. Subjects given no information about size produced distance estimates that were randomly distributed, whereas size information yielded a weak effect in the appropriate direction. Implications for the size-distance invariance hypothesis and the specific distance tendency are discussed.No previous investigation has assessed both the effects of size information on distance judgments and the effect of distance information on size judgments for varying retinal images. The purpose of the present study was to investigate these variables in a single experimental setting in which cue reduction was assured.The majority of the studies in this area focus on size or distance judgments under familiar size instructions or with off-sized familiar objects. Several studies (Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, & Tyer, 1982;Gogel, 1968;Gogel & Mertens, 1967) have shown that the judged size of a familiar object corresponds very well to its real size, and judged distance corresponds to the actual distance at which that size would produce the given retinal size. In other studies (Baird, 1963;Park & Michaelson, 1974), an object is presented and the observer is told that it is the same size as a familiar object; distance judgments correspond quite well to the distance at which that object would produce the given retinal image.It is not clear what the effect would be if an instruction regarding an object's size was not associated with a familiar object. In this case, an observer would have to interpret the object in terms of the retinal image and cognitive information. Coltheart (1970) reported that subjects could do this very well; Park and Michaelson (1974), on the other hand, reported that size instruction had no effect on distance judgments. Since it is not possible to determine why these results differ, the present experiment was undertaken, in part, as an attempt to resolve this conflict.Reprint requests should be sent to Zita E. Tyer, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030.Only Coltheart (1969) has tested the effect of verbal distance information on observers' size estimates. In Coltheart's (1969) experiment, subjects judged the size of a stimulus more accurately when they were told its distance than when they were not. It is unfortunate, however, in terms of stimulus control, that the instruction was the same distance as that at which the object was actually located. It is not possible to determine if the accurate judgments were entirely a function of the instruction or were enhanced by un...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Instruction effects on size and distance judgments

Tyer

Allen

Pasnak

1983

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their estimates corresponded to the retinal angle, rather than the metric size of the stimuli. The probable roles of the specific distance tendency and aerial perspective as perceptual anchors that govern these estimates were discussed.In independently conducted research, Baird (1964), Gogel (1969), and Gogel and Sturm (1971 reported that, in the absence of uncontrolled depth cues, retinal image, not metric size, is discriminated. A more recent investigation reported by Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, and Tyer (1982), however, indicated that retinal image was not discriminated in a cue-reduced experimental situation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus size and visual angle in a cue-reduced experimental setting

Rix

Tyer

Pasnak

1983

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of stimulus size and visual angle on the perception of luminescent objects was studied. Forty subjects were asked to estimate the size of one of four stimulus objects viewed through a pinhole eyepiece. Their estimates corresponded to the retinal angle, rather than the metric size of the stimuli. The probable roles of the specific distance tendency and aerial perspective as perceptual anchors that govern these estimates were discussed.In independently conducted research, Baird (1964), Gogel (1969), and Gogel and Sturm (1971 reported that, in the absence of uncontrolled depth cues, retinal image, not metric size, is discriminated. A more recent investigation reported by Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, and Tyer (1982), however, indicated that retinal image was not discriminated in a cue-reduced experimental situation. Fitzpatrick et al. (1982) used a pinhole eyepiece to control for accommodation and monocular accommodative convergence. This method of cue control was also employed by Gogel and Sturm (1971), but it produced conflicting results in their situation. The present investigation was designed to test the effect of stimulus size and retinal angle on size perception using the pinhole eyepiece method of cue control. Comparisons that facilitate a statistical assessment of the success of cue reduction were incorporated in the experimental design. METHOD SubjectsSubjects were 40 volunteers who were naive regarding the nature of the experiment and were not familiar with the experimental suite. Only individuals with 20/30 vision or better in one eye as measured by a Snellen Eye Chart were used as subjects, and none wore corrective lenses. ApparatusThe lighttight laboratory suite was internal to other laboratory rooms and separated from them by an exterior hallway so that subjects could gain no idea of the shape or size of the experimental chamber . The experimental chamber measured 18.24 x 2.74 x 3.04 m , Accommodation cues were controlled by mounting a 1.0-mm pinhole eyepiece in the door of the experimental chamber 1.17 m from the floor . The effect of mounting the eyepiece in the closed door was to deny subjects an opportunity to estimate the size of the chamber .Four stimuli were constructed from luminescent strips (John Meshna, Inc., Lynn, Massachusetts) that emitted a uniform faint green glow when alternating current was applied to them. The stimuli's dimensions were (A) 2.54 x .64 em, (B) 5.08 x 1.27 em, (C) 20.53 x 2.54 em, and (D) 41.06 x 5.08 em.All stimuli were mounted on wooden stands 1.17 m from the floor. A and B were placed 2.44 and 4.88 m, respectively, from 29 the subject's eye, subtending a visual angle of 1 deg 12 min. C and D were situated 4 .88 and 9.75 m, respectively, from the subject's eye, subtending a visual angle of 4 deg 48 min.Prior to the experiment, brightness matches between all stimuli were determined by adjusting supply voltages to the strips using ac variacs. Luminance at the eyepiece was -.03 log f'L, The low luminance, unfamiliar dimensions of the experimental chamber, and monocu...

show abstract

“…[ IlS>]=1, lIS S Sturm, 1971;Ittelson, 1960) have indicated that the relative size cue has an effect on relative perceived distance when two objects of the same shape but different retinal sizes are presented simultaneously or successively in reduced-cue conditions. However, it seems premature to conclude from these studies that this cue can be defined in terms of relative retinal size, because the relational perception of the two primary perceived sizes, i.e., primary perceived relative size, may be interpreted to be crucial for the effect of the relative size cue on relative perceived distance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived size and distance as a perceptual conflict between two processing modes

Higashiyama

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three different sized squares were successively presented at the same physical distance under three observational conditions which provided different information about distance in the visual field. The 60 observers in each observational condition were asked to give verbal absolute judgments of perceived size and perceived distance for each of the squares. The results showed that in a full-cue situation a ratio of perceived absolute sizes is equal to that of the corresponding visual angles, with perceived distances appearing equal to each other; in a reduced-cue situation an object of smaller perceived size is judged to be farther away than one of larger perceived size, with the observers tending to assume the two objects as the same object or identically sized objects. These results were analyzed in terms of the perceptual conflict between primary perception and secondary perception.equal to the corresponding ratio of the visual angles,

show abstract

Directional separation and the size cue to distance

Cited by 29 publications

References 18 publications

Instruction effects on size and distance judgments

Instruction effects on size and distance judgments

Stimulus size and visual angle in a cue-reduced experimental setting

Perceived size and distance as a perceptual conflict between two processing modes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About