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

Self Cite

We investigated spatial perception of virtual images that were produced by convex and plane mirrors. In Experiment 1, 36 subjects reproduced both the perceived size and the perceived distance of virtual images for five targets that had been placed at a real distance of 10 or 20 m. In Experiment 2, 30 subjects verbally judged both the perceived size and the perceived distance of virtual images for five targets that were placed at each of five real distances of 2.5 -45 m. In both experiments, the subjects received objective-size and objective-distance instructions. The results were that (1) size constancy was attained for a distance of up to 45 m, (2) distance was readily discriminated within this distance range, although virtual images produced by the mirror of strong curvature were judged to be farther away than those produced by the mirrors of less curvature, and (3) the ratio of perceived size to perceived distance was described as a power function of visual angle, and the ratio for the convex mirror was larger than that for the plane mirror. We compared the taking-into-account model and the direct perception model on the basis of a correlation analysis for proximal, virtual, and real levels of the stimuli. The taking-into-account model, which assumes that visual angle is transformed into perceived size by taking perceived distance into account, was supported by an analysis for the proximal level of stimuli. The direct perception model, which assumes that there is no inferential process between perceived size and perceived distance, was partially supported by an analysis for the distal level of the stimuli.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 60%

Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images

Higashiyama

Shimono

2004

Self Cite

“…In the case of a familiar object, and assuming that familiar size influences perceived size and distance, the expected ratios are similar to those of the relative retinal size cue: the ratio of perceived sizes of the first to the second object is equal to one (SUS~= 1), and the ratio of their perceived distances is the inverse of the ratio of the retinal sizes of the two objects (DUD~= ¢2/¢.). A similar analysis of the relationship between the perceived sizes and distances of successively presented objects has been outlined by Higashiyama (1977) in terms of primary (absolute retinal cue) and secondary (relative retinal size) perceptual processes. However, neither the present analysis nor Higashiyama's analysis takes into account the possible role of the instruction variable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

The role of instructions and familiar size in absolute judgments of size and distance

Fredebon

1992

The effects of familiar size and instructions (apparent, objective) on direct reports of size and distance were evaluated. Subjects estimated the size and distance of two different-sized playing cards or two unfamiliar stimuli under either apparent or objective instructions. The stimuli were presented successively at a distance of 5.48 m under reduced-cue conditions. The form of the instructions selectively influenced the effect of familiar size on absolute judgments of size and distance, with apparent instructions minimizing, and objective instructions promoting, familiar-size effects. The ratio of the distance judgments of the first to the second presented stimuli approximated the relative retinal sizes of the two objects under both apparent and objective instructions, while the ratio of size judgments tended to be either influenced by or independent of the object's relative retinal sizes under apparent and objective instructions, respectively. These results are consistent with Gogel's theory of off-size perception and, in particular, with the claim that, in comparison with apparent instructions, objective instructions are more likely to direct observers to base their judgments on cognitive, as opposed to perceptual, sources of spatial information.

“…The exponent probably increases with a reduction of spatial cues. Under a full distance-cue condition, an increase of visual angle increases apparent size but does not affect apparent distance (Higashiyama & Kitano, 1991), whereas under an extremely reduced distance-eue condition, an increase of visual angle increases apparent size and decreases apparent distance (Higashiyama, 1977(Higashiyama, , 1979. Therefore, the S' 1D' ratio as a function of visual angle may grow steeply in the reduced distance-cue conditions.…”

Section: Form Of the S'id' Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How accurate is size and distance perception for very far terrestrial objects? Function and causality

Higashiyama

Shimono

1994

Self Cite

This study investigated absolute estimation of size and distance for natural and artificial objects at viewing distances of 1.1-15.3 km (Experiments 1 and 2) and 0.4-5.0 m (Experiment 3). The main results were that, regardless of distance range, size and distance estimates (S' and D') were related to objective size and distance (S and D), respectively, by a power function with an exponent of unity, but great individual differences in exponent were obtained for the far objects. The ratio S'ID' was reasonably represented by S'ID' = KO n and S'ID' = tan(aO+b), rather than S'ID' = tanO, where 0 is the visual angle. Partial correlations were obtained to examine whether (1) apparent size is determined by taking apparent distance into account or (2) both apparent size and apparent distance are determined directly by external stimuli. The combined data for the far objects and the data for the close objects showed that there were high correlations between Sand S' and between D and D' and a low correlation between D' and S'. The data of Experiment 2 showed that both D' and S' were highly correlated with S, D, and 0, and there was a high positive correlation between D' and S', It was suggested that the direct-perception model is valid under some situations, but the taking-into-account model is not supported in any set of data.In this study, we investigated perception of the size of and distance of very far objects. The perception of size and distance may not be correctly achieved for celestial objects such as the moon, the sun, and a constellation. For example, estimates of the size and distance of the moon may not be exact if you are not an astronomer. Some authors have indeed assumed that there is a perceptible maximal distance, beyond which any object is perceived to be at a constant distance and distance is not discriminated at all (Gilinsky, 1951;Indow, 1991;Luneburg, 1947;Nishi, 1930). Others have assumed that size constancy does not hold for very far objects and that the visual system tends to respond to the visual angle, rather than the distal size, of the object (Higashiyama, 1992).How do we perceive size and distance for very far terrestrial objects? In this study, we report three experiments.We would like to express our appreciation to Captain Matsumura and the crews of Shiojimaru, who traveled across Tokyo Bay in Experiment 2. We would like to thank John C. Baird, Hal A. Sedgwick. and Myron L. Braunstein for their useful comments on the earlier manuscript. and thank an anonymous reviewer for his or her help in improving the English expressions. A. Higashiyama's mailing address is: Institute of Human Sciences, College of Integrated Arts and Sciences, University of Osaka Prefecture, Sakai 593, Japan. K. Shimono's mailing address is: Social Sciences Laboratory, Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135, Japan.We first sought to specify the distance range over which the accurate perception of size and distance would be maintained. In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects estimated absolute size and distan...