1982
DOI: 10.1068/p110085
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effect of Familiar Size at Familiar Distances

Abstract: The effect of familial size as a distance cue was tested with familiar objects at familiar distances. Experiment 1 showed that there were no uncontrolled distance cues available and that in their absence the retinal image did not affect depth or size perception. Under these conditions, size and distance judgments were essentially indeterminate and independent of each other. In experiment 2 a paradigm was employed which allowed a direct determination of whether equivalent changes either in size of a familiar ob… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
2
1

Year Published

1983
1983
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
31
2
1
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%
“…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%
“…and to distance (e.g., Gogel, 1976;Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, & Tyer, 1982). The high proportion of off-sized judgments in the present Experiments 1 and 2 and in Gogel and Newton's (1969) study might be attributed to the repeated measures design of these experiments.…”
Section: Off-sized Perceptions 241mentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Although this finding is hardly novel (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al, 1982;Gogel & Da Silva, 1987;Predebon, 1mb), its significance for the familiar-size theory is that it makes it difficult to defend the theory by dismissing the size findings on the grounds that familiar size was an ineffective determinant of reports of distance and, by implication via the SDIH, perceived size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The change in the angular size of objects is potentially a salient cue to altitude (Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, & Tyler, 1982). This cue would be expected to vary with object density, but if objects are large enough such that altituderelated size changes are above threshold, we would not expect it to be affected by either object height or object radius.…”
Section: The Use Of Other Visual Cues To Altitude Maintenancementioning
confidence: 99%