Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size?

Landauer, Ali A.; Epstein, William

doi:10.3758/bf03210097

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the results of the causal analysis by means of partial correlations, we can conclude that both the perceived size and perceived distance obtained in the present study were directly determined by two stimulus variables, visual angle and convergence, and that the observed relation between perceived size and perceived distance was not based on a direct causal relation between them but was only a spurious relation indirectly induced by their common stimulus determinants. This conclusion may be consistent with the view proposed by Epstein and Landauer (1969) and Landauer and Epstein (1969), who regarded the perceived size and perceived distance as independent consequences of the same stimulus variable, visual angle.…”

Section: Preliminary Training Of Size and Distance Estimationsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…On the other hand, the significantly negative first-order partial correlation between the same two variables with a kept constant, rs D' a, means that perceived size and perceived distance of the objects of various physical sizes presented at a constant distance are negatively correlated with each other: The objects appear larger and nearer as the visual angle increases. This latter relation corresponds to results obtained by Epstein and Landauer (1969) and Landauer and Epstein (1969) in some of their experiments. It is interesting that both positive and negative correlations were found between the same two dependent variables, S' and D', depending on the choice of independent variable to be kept constant.…”

Section: Preliminary Training Of Size and Distance Estimationmentioning

confidence: 68%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceived size and perceived distance in stereoscopic vision and an analysis of their causal relations

Oyama

1974

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of visual angle and convergence upon the perceived sizes and perceived distances of a familiar object (playing card) and a nonrepresentational object (blank white card) were investigated by means of a projector stereoscope with polarizing filters. The results obtained with six Ss indicated that size estimates increased nearly proportionally as the visual angle increased and decreased nearly linearly as the convergence increased. Distance estimates decreased nearly linearly as either the visual angle or the convergence increased. The ratio of the size estimate to the distance estimate for a given visual angle was almost constant irrespective of convergence. In this sense, the size-distance invariance hypothesis held. No clear effect of familiarity was found. Partial correlations were used to discriminate direct and indirect causal relationships between the stimulus variables and perceptual estimates. Both perceived size and perceived distance were found to be determined directly by the two stimulus variables, but to be mutually related only indirectly.

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Training Of Size and Distance Estimationsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Preliminary Training Of Size and Distance Estimationmentioning

confidence: 68%

Perceived size and perceived distance in stereoscopic vision and an analysis of their causal relations

Oyama

1974

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results from two recent studies, one by Epstein and Landauer (1969) and the other by Landauer and Epstein (1969) are interpreted by these authors as being in opposition to the size-distance invariance hypothesis and in agreement with the direct perception of retinal size. The present comments will provide an opposite interpretation of these data.…”

contrasting

confidence: 47%

“…It can be concluded that the simultaneous increase in reported size and decrease in reported distance with increasing retinal size occurring in the study by Epstein and Landauer is consistent with, rather than in opposition to, the size-distance invariance hypothesis. In the study by Landauer and Epstein (1969), one disk at a time was presented with disks of different angular sizes presented to different groups of Os. Again it was found that reported distance decreased while reported size increased with increases in visual angle, and again the authors conclude that the data are in opposition to the size-distance invariance hypothesis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The validity of the size-distance invariance hypothesis with cue reduction

Gogel

1971

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(3) Both perceived depth and perceived height are determined by the same stimulus cues in the same way, and, consequently, they are correlated with each other. Epstein and Landauer (1969) and Landauer and Epstein (1969) suggested that, under certain circumstances, judged size and judged distance were independent consequences of the same stimulus variable, namely visual angle. This is in agreement with case 3.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interrelation of the effects of binocular disparity and perspective cues on judgments of depth and height

Meer

1979

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of binocular disparity (aniseikonia) and perspective cues operating together on judgments of depth and height were studied, both when these stimulus variables operated in the same direction and when they were in conflict. Both depth cues were effective upon the perception of depth and height. The effects of binocular disparity and perspective cues upon perceived depth were found to be additive. The effects of these depth cues upon perceived height showed some interaction in the sense that, operating together, the effect of the perspective cue was stronger than the separate effect of the perspective cue, both when binocular disparity and perspective cues operated in the same direction and when they were in conflict. This interactive effect increased with increasing strength of the perspective cues. The size-distance invariance hypothesis was confirmed under the present experimental conditions. By a causal analysis of inference, this invariant relation could be explained in the following way: both the perceived depth and the perceived height of the sides of the patterns were directly determined by binocular disparity and perspective cues, but the perceived height was also indirectly determined through change of perceived depth. A direct causal relation between perceived depth and perceived height was found.Harker (1958) found that when binocular disparity was supplemented with monocular cues to depth, observers had better stereoacuity than when the binocular cues alone were present. Harker suggested that this could be attributed to the fact that binocular and monocular cues provide the observer with independent information about the depth interval between two objects. The observers integrated the monocular and binocular stimulation in a supplemental manner. Jameson and Hurvich (1959) concluded, in an experiment on the relation between stereoscopic acuity and observation distance, that when multiple stimulus factors are permitted to vary naturally with changes in object distance, all of these multiple factors seem to contribute cooperatively and in a simple summative fashion to the observer's perceptual sensitivity to distance changes. The monocular cues in neither experiment were fully identified.In the present study, we will investigate the way in which binocular disparity and perspective cues affect the perception of depth, both when these cues operate in the same direction and when they are in conflict. As cues to the perception of depth or distance are also implicated in size perception, we will simultaneously study the effects of binocular disparity and perspective cues on the perception of size.There are a number of papers on the effect of combining monocular depth cues with binocular disparity upon perceived depth. Very few studies have simultaneously investigated their effects on both perceived depth and perceived size. Most studies on perceived depth have concentrated upon the effects of cue conflict and upon the relative strengths of the cues. These cue-conflict studies have not always been ...

show abstract

Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size?

Cited by 16 publications

References 6 publications

Perceived size and perceived distance in stereoscopic vision and an analysis of their causal relations

Perceived size and perceived distance in stereoscopic vision and an analysis of their causal relations

The validity of the size-distance invariance hypothesis with cue reduction

Interrelation of the effects of binocular disparity and perspective cues on judgments of depth and height

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About