Importance of object recognition in size constancy.

Bolles, Robert C.; Bailey, Daniel E.

doi:10.1037/h0048080

Cited by 55 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To show the latter, subjects were asked to make objective size judgments of these kinds of objects from memory in the absence of any concurrent perceptual information. (We followed a procedure first used by Bolles & Bailey, 1956, though they did not consider or manipulate token variation).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The independence of size perception and distance perception

Haber

Levin

2001

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on distance perception has focused on environmental sources of information, which have been well documented; in contrast, size perception research has focused on familiarity or has relied on distance information. An analysis of these two parallel bodies of work reveals their lack of equivalence. Furthermore, definitions of familiarity need environmental grounding, specifically concerning the amount of size variation among different tokens of an object. To demonstrate the independence of size and distance perception, subjects in two experiments were asked to estimate the sizes of common objects from memory and then to estimate both the sizes and the distances of a subset of such objects displayed in front of them. The experiments found that token variation was a critical variable in the accuracy of size estimations, whether from memory or with vision, and that distance had no impact at all on size perception. Furthermore, when distance information was good, size had no effect on distance estimation; in contrast, at far distances, the distances to token variable or unknown objects were estimated with less accuracy. The results suggest that size perception has been misconceptualized, so that the relevant research to understand its properties has not been undertaken. The size-distance invariance hypothesis was shown to be inadequate for both areas of research.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The independence of size perception and distance perception

Haber

Levin

2001

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, such an approach comes as a consequence of the visual angles of target's perception being, actually, its perceived visual angles (Baird, 1970;Higashiyama, 1992), relevant for the simultaneous perception of target's linear sizes (specifically its perceived linear sizes) from the absolute distances (Colheart, 1970) as well as from the perceived distances (Hastorf, 1950;Roscoe, 1984) -under the influence of distance/depth cues (Bolles and Bailey, 1956;Komoda and Ono, 1974;Higashiyama and Shimono, 1994;McCready, 1985;Gogel and Eby, 1997). Such target's perception as a perception of its visual angles (defined by pairs of eye-rays which correspond to the endpoints of the perceived linear sizes) is also deeply investigated by Foley (1980) ("Direction-Perception", "Egocentric Distance-Signal Perception") and Murray et al (2006) ("Neurophysiologic Approach").…”

Section: Previous Subject-related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact Of Architectural And Urban Patterns On The Behaviour Of An Exhibited Angular Size-Illusion

Djordjević¹,

Djukanovic²

2017

METU JFA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Scaling of s may occur by linear size cuing, which involves cues such as "familiar or known size" (Bolles & Bailey, 1956;Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, & Tyer, 1982;O'Leary & Wallach, 1980;Ono, 1969), or cues such as a felt object's phenomenal haptic size (Coltheart, 1969). Or s may be scaled by hypothesizing, in which the target appears an assumed, presumed, or suggested linear size (Coltheart, 1970;Hastorf, 1950;Ittelson, 1960).…”

Section: Memory Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%