Size as a Cue to Distance: Static Localization

Ittelson, William H.

doi:10.2307/1418595

Cited by 118 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Familiarity based on experience with an object has been shown to serve as a depth cue (Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, & Tyer, 1982;Ittelson, 1951). However, few researchers have considered how the type of experience with an object influences size estimates of the object.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size

Wesp

Cichello

Gracia

et al. 2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size

Wesp

Cichello

Gracia

et al. 2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since the intial work of Hastorf (1950) and Ittelson (1951), numerous studies have demonstrated that under conditions of visual-and oculomotor-cue reduction, the familiar or assumed size of an object influences judgments of distance (see Epstein, 1967;Sedgwick, 1986). In contrast, in only a few studies (Carlson & Tassone, 1971;Fillenbaum, Schiffman, & Butcher, 1965;Higashiyama, 1984;Predebon, 1979aPredebon, , 1979bPredebon, , 1987 has the effect of familiar size on judgments of distance under naturalistic, unrestricted viewing conditions been investigated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative distance judgments of familiar and unfamiliar objects viewed under representatively natural conditions

Predebon

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although a number of studies have demonstrated convincingly that familiar size influences adult subjects' judgments of object distance (Baird, 1963;Dinnerstein, 1967;Epstein, 1963Epstein, , 1965Epstein & Baratz, 1964;Eriksson & Zetterberg, 1975;Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, & Tyer, 1982;Gogel, 1968Gogel, , 1969Gogel & Mertens, 1968;Ittelson, 1951aIttelson, , 1951bNewman, 1972;Ono, 1969), one important criticism of these studies has not been adequately addressed. In a critique of Ittelson's (1951a) study, Hochberg and Hochberg (1953) argued that Ittleson's subjects might not have perceived the stimulus objects to be at the distances they reported; instead, they may have consciously inferred the distances at which familiar objects would project various visual angles. Thus, it is unclear whether familiar size determines perceived distance or only allows subjects to make conscious estimates of distance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Infants’ sensitivity to familiar size: The effect of memory on spatial perception

Granrud

Haake

Yonas

1985

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated infants' sensitivity to familiar size as information for the distances of objects with which they had had only brief experience. Each experiment had two phases: a familiarization phase and a test phase. During the familiarization phase, the infant played with a pair of different-sized objects for 10 min. During the test phase, a pair of objects, identical to those seen in the familiarization phase but now equal in size, were presented to the infant at a fixed distance under monocular or binocular viewing conditions. In the test phase of Experiment 1, 7-month-old infants viewing the objects monocularly showed a significant preference to reach for the object that resembled the smaller object in the familiarization phase. Seven-monthold infants in the binocular viewing condition reached equally to the two test phase objects. These results indicate that, in the monocular condition, the 7-month-olds used knowledge about the objects' sizes, acquired during the familiarization phase, to perceive distance from the test objects' visual angles, and that they reached preferentially for the apparently nearer object. The lack of a reaching preference in the binocular condition rules out interpretations of the results not based on the objects' perceived distances. The results, therefore, indicate that 7-month-old infants can use memory to mediate spatial perception. The implications of this finding for the debate between direct and indirect theories of visual perception are discussed. In the test phase of Experiment 2, 5-month-old infants viewing the objects monocularly showed no reaching preference. These infants, therefore, showed no evidence of sensitivity to familiar size as distance information.

show abstract

Size as a Cue to Distance: Static Localization

Cited by 118 publications

References 0 publications

Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size

Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size

Relative distance judgments of familiar and unfamiliar objects viewed under representatively natural conditions

Infants’ sensitivity to familiar size: The effect of memory on spatial perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About