On Size-Perception in the Absence of Cues for Distance

Wallach, Hans; McKenna, Virgil V.

doi:10.2307/1420188

Cited by 31 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The differences between size matches in ascending trials compared to descending trials were small indicating that the obtained size matches were not a function of the starting size of the comparison object. This finding is contrary to that of Wallach and McKenna (1960) but consistent with that of Rock and McDermott (1964). However, differences limited to the near distance, 40 cm, were found which qualify this general conclusion.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 46%

Linear perspective and perceived size

McDermott

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent investigation (McDermott, i965) One of the problems in studying the effect of distance information on the perception of size may be in the manner in which these experiments are conducted. Under reduction conditions (dark room, 5 isolated from the stimuli. reduced viewing conditions) the relationship in space between the 5 and the stimulus is undefined. For example, with interposition as the available distance cue, the 0 has information about the distance of one object relative to another but no information about the absolute distance between himselfand either object is available. In the absence of such absolute distance information the 5 is in a sense forced to respond to the only stable perceptual experience available to him, i.e., the retinal image. Rock and McDermott ( 19(4) have shown under certain reduction conditions the retinal image is a stable perceptual experience to which Ss can respond with a minimum of intersubject variability. Another problem in these kinds of experiments may be that a single distance cue may simply not provide enough information. Or perhaps the information a single distance cue does provide may be so unstable that the 5 again must respond to the only stable experience available to him, the retinal image.Perceived size is believed to depart from constancy as the amount of available distance information decreases (Chalmers, 1952;Hastorf & Way, 1952;Holway & Boring, 1941; Lichten & Lurie. 1950; McDermott, 1963 McDermott, , 1965 Rock & McDermott. 19(4). Characteristically experiments examining the effect of distance on size perception manipulate the distance information by changes in the viewing conditions rather than by manipulating the distance cues themselves. For example, reducing the viewing condition to a monocular condition results in the loss of distance information supplied by convergence and retinal disparity. Adding an artificial pupil eliminates accommodation. Each change results in size perception departing from constancy in ever increasing amounts until finally With the addition of the artificial pupil retinal image size matches arc made. In a recent study (McDermott, 19(5) each of the distance cues referred to above as well as linear perspective, movement parallax and interposition were systematically studied one at a time and their individual effect on size perception was measured. It was found that size matches in the presence of single cues to distance were made in terms of retinal image size. These findings supported the earlier work in accommodation and convergence (Adams, 1955; Gogel. 1962a, b: Heinemann, 1961Heinemann, Tulving & Nachmias, 1959;Woodworth & Schlosberg, 1954). The surprising finding of retinal image size matches in the presence of other individual cues to distance once again points to weakness in the size-distance invariance hypothesis consistent with previous findings (Epstein, Park, & Casey, 19(1).In order to extend knowledge about the effect of distance information on size it was decided to investigate the effect of distance cues ...

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 46%

Linear perspective and perceived size

McDermott

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both Wallach and McKenna (1960) and Rock and McDennott (1964) used visual comparators to secure size judgments. Gogel (in press) had Ss make tactual size matches and verbal distance estimates of a single nonrepresentative target in the absence of distance cues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, can evidence be adduced that variations of visual angle are accompanied by variations of perceived size, irrespective of concomitant variations of perceived distance? This question has been examined by Wallach and McKenna (1960), Rock and McDermott (1964), and Gogel (in press) with contradictory results.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size?

Landauer

Epstein

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite controversy concerning the perceptibility of angular size per se (14,15), several theories attribute the moon illusion to a difference in the perceived angular size of the moon (11,(16)(17)(18). As stated, some hold that a diminution of the image of the elevated moon is a direct effect of the increase in accommodation when the moon is viewed through empty space (11,17).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the moon illusion

Kaufman

2000

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An old explanation of the moon illusion holds that various cues place the horizon moon at an effectively greater distance than the elevated moon. Although both moons have the same angular size, the horizon moon must be perceived as larger. More recent explanations hold that differences in accommodation or other factors cause the elevated moon to appear smaller. As a result of this illusory difference in size, the elevated moon appears to be more distant than the horizon moon. These two explanations, both based on the geometry of stereopsis, lead to two diametrically opposed hypotheses. That is, a depth interval at a long distance is associated with a smaller binocular disparity, whereas an equal depth interval at a smaller distance is associated with a larger disparity. We conducted experiments involving artificial moons and confirmed the hypothesis that the horizon moon is at a greater perceptual distance. Moreover, when a moon of constant angular size was moved closer it was also perceived as growing smaller, which is consistent with the older explanation. Although Emmert's law does not predict the size-distance relationship over long distances, we conclude that the horizon moon is perceived as larger because the perceptual system treats it as though it is much farther away. Finally, we observe that recent explanations substitute perceived size for angular size as a cue to distance. Thus, they imply that perceptions cause perceptions.

show abstract

On Size-Perception in the Absence of Cues for Distance

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

Linear perspective and perceived size

Linear perspective and perceived size

Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size?

Explaining the moon illusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About