Size scaling in two-dimensional pictorial arrays

Uhlarik, John; Pringle, Richard; Jordan, Kevin; Misceo, Giovanni F.

doi:10.3758/bf03199907

Cited by 17 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both predictions have been empirically verified (Hartley, 1977(Hartley, , 1981Reed, Hock, & Lockhead, 1983). Uhlarik, Pringle, Jordan, and Misceo (1980) found similar results for magnitude estimation of frontal size.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Fundamental Measurement of Perceived Length and Perceived Area

Masin

2012

IJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the method of counting mental units the study explored whether judged lengths and area in right triangles, squares, and disks were consistent with the geometric relationships in these surfaces. Judgments were found to consist with these relationships supporting the idea that they were fundamental measures of perceived extents. Fundamental measures obtained by mental counting differ from corresponding measures obtained by magnitude estimation, rating, and nonmetric scaling. Reasons are suggested as to why these other methods may be biased.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Fundamental Measurement of Perceived Length and Perceived Area

Masin

2012

IJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, previous studies have shown that, with reduced depth cues and provided there are numerous pictorial depth cues, physical size remains dominant over projected size (Uhlarik et al, 1980;Yonas & Hagen, 1973). However, Bennett and Warren (2002) provided evidence to suggest that projected size might dominate if pictorial cues are also reduced.…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Depth can be determined by using the binocular cues of vergence and retinal disparity and by using monocular information, available through accommodation, motion parallax, and pictorial cues. We know that when adults are asked to make size judgments, such judgments are dominated by physical size over projected size, even in the absence of binocular cues, accommodation, and motion parallax-that is, when only pictorial cues are available (Uhlarik, Pringle, Jordan, & Misceo, 1980;Yonas & Hagen, 1973). However, little is known about the effect that reducing the number of pictorial cues has on the perception of size.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second way in which linear perspective indicates size and depth is also specified by the third depth cue added, texture gradient. For both linear perspective and texture gradient, depth is indicated by the angular separation between the projection of converging horizontal surface lines (edges or Uhlarik et al (1980) demonstrated that pictorial depth cues affect size judgments, even when participants are asked to respond according to projected size. Participants viewed a 2-D photograph of a shape placed in a textured 3-D alley under binocular viewing conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, it appears that, in adults, depth perception is a relatively low-level process that occurs in the early stages of visual perception. That is, in common with some visual search mechanisms, depth cues are processed preattentively (see Treisman, 1986) and, therefore, are difficult to inhibit (Uhlarik et al, 1980). Bennett and Warren (2002) adapted a standard size transformation task to investigate the influences of projected and physical size on performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of pictorial depth information on projected size judgments

Farran

Whitaker

Patel

2009

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When they are available, depth cues combine to enable us to perceive the physical size of a static object in depth. This perception of physical size remains constant, despite changes in the distance of the object from the observer and the visual angle that it subtends (i.e., size constancy; see Sedgwick, 1986). In contrast to physical size, the projected size of an object is established by the visual angle that it subtends on the retina. When judgments of size are made, the relative influence of physical size and projected size is dependent on the amount of depth information available; that is, when depth is perceived, we expect a more distant object to have a smaller projected size, but to have the same physical size, than when it is closer in depth (Epstein, 1973). Depth can be determined by using the binocular cues of vergence and retinal disparity and by using monocular information, available through accommodation, motion parallax, and pictorial cues. We know that when adults are asked to make size judgments, such judgments are dominated by physical size over projected size, even in the absence of binocular cues, accommodation, and motion parallax-that is, when only pictorial cues are available (Uhlarik, Pringle, Jordan, & Misceo, 1980;Yonas & Hagen, 1973). However, little is known about the effect that reducing the number of pictorial cues has on the perception of size. In this study, our aim was to determine the point at which depth cues begin to influence size judgments-that is, how much depth information is required for the perception of size to be influenced by physical size information.Yonas and Hagen (1973) investigated depth perception by manipulating accommodation (3-D vs. 2-D presentation) and motion parallax (present vs. absent) depth cues in a size judgment task. Two real triangles of different physical size, presented monocularly, were positioned in a real textured alley, and participants were asked which triangle was larger. The visual angle (projected size) subtended by the large triangle either was equal to that subtended by the small triangle or was 70% or 80% of the projected size of the smaller triangle. Adult participants used the available cues and gave judgments according to physical size. Three-and 7-year-olds responded to physical size when the projected size of the two triangles was equal. However, when the projected and physical size differences were incongruent, children required at least 3-D depth information in order to respond according to physical size, and on the hardest trials (70% projected size difference), 3-year-olds also required the additional depth cue of motion parallax. These results indicate that, with development, perception of physical size is possible with progressively fewer depth cues, and, for adults, pictorial cues alone are sufficient for physical size to dominate. The present study further investigates this dominance by testing with one, two, and three pictorial cues. 207© 2009 The Psychonomic Society, Inc. When full depth cues are available, size judgments...

show abstract

A Computational Theory of the Mental Imagery Medium

Pinker

1988

Cognitive and Neuropsychological Approaches to Mental Imagery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Size scaling in two-dimensional pictorial arrays

Cited by 17 publications

References 19 publications

Fundamental Measurement of Perceived Length and Perceived Area

Fundamental Measurement of Perceived Length and Perceived Area

The effect of pictorial depth information on projected size judgments

A Computational Theory of the Mental Imagery Medium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About