The effect of verbal size information upon visual judgments of absolute distance

Coltheart, Max

doi:10.3758/bf03212634

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Coltheart (1970), the high variability of distance judgments made in response to verbal size information may be attributed to individual differences in the way in which Ss use verbal estimates to describe apparent distance. However, the present experiment produced high correlations between verbal estimates and magnitude productions, indicating that Ss can make a precise use of verbal estimates to describe apparent distance.…”

Section: Discussion Park and Michaelsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of the present experiment require a qualification of Coltheart's (1970) contention that size information, however obtained, can be used in making judgments of distance. At least in certain experimental situations, Ss are not able to utilize size information in the form of verbally communicated metric units.…”

Section: Discussion Park and Michaelsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coltheart (1970) has summarized evidence that distance judgments are affected by size information, regardless of the manner in which this information is communicated to S-whether by means of a visual representation (Gogel & Mertens, 1967), by means of a verbal statement of size in metric units, e.g., "1~in. in height" (Coltheart, 1970), by giving the target the name of a familir object, e.g., "foot ruler" (Baird, 1963), or by means of a haptically presented comparison object (Coltheart, 1969). Distance judgments based on size information of whatever kind are typically highly variable and conform only roughly to the requirements of the size-distance invariance hypothesis (Coltheart, 1970;Epstein, Park, & Casey, 1961).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…in height" (Coltheart, 1970), by giving the target the name of a familir object, e.g., "foot ruler" (Baird, 1963), or by means of a haptically presented comparison object (Coltheart, 1969). Distance judgments based on size information of whatever kind are typically highly variable and conform only roughly to the requirements of the size-distance invariance hypothesis (Coltheart, 1970;Epstein, Park, & Casey, 1961). Variation in amoun t of deviation from invariance-hypothesis requirements may reflect variation in the specificity of the information about target size communicated to the S in different ways.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Distance judgments under different size-information conditions

Park

Michaelson

1974

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seventy-two Ss judged the absolute distance of a target presented without distance cues other than retinal size and assumed size. The method by which E communicated information about the size of a 3-in. target had a significant effect on the magnitude of the discrepancy between judged distance and the perceived distance required by the size-distance invariance hypothesis. In order of increasing effectiveness in producing distance judgments meeting invariance requirements were: size information in the fonn of verbally communicated metric units, size information communicated by labeling the target with the name of a familiar object, and size information in the fonn of a visual representation.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Park and Michaelsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion Park and Michaelsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distance judgments under different size-information conditions

Park

Michaelson

1974

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this case, an observer would have to interpret the object in terms of the retinal image and cognitive information. Coltheart (1970) reported that subjects could do this very well; Park and Michaelson (1974), on the other hand, reported that size instruction had no effect on distance judgments. Since it is not possible to determine why these results differ, the present experiment was undertaken, in part, as an attempt to resolve this conflict.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Instruction effects on size and distance judgments

Tyer

Allen

Pasnak

1983

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypotheses that size judgments of unfamiliar objects are affected by distance information, and distance judgments by size information, were tested. Subjects made size or distance estimates in a cue-reduced situation, with or without distance or size information, and also made calibrated estimates in full-cue conditions. Size judgments in the no-information condition were correlated with the retinal image, whereas distance information produced size estimates closer to the actual size of the objects. Subjects given no information about size produced distance estimates that were randomly distributed, whereas size information yielded a weak effect in the appropriate direction. Implications for the size-distance invariance hypothesis and the specific distance tendency are discussed.No previous investigation has assessed both the effects of size information on distance judgments and the effect of distance information on size judgments for varying retinal images. The purpose of the present study was to investigate these variables in a single experimental setting in which cue reduction was assured.The majority of the studies in this area focus on size or distance judgments under familiar size instructions or with off-sized familiar objects. Several studies (Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, & Tyer, 1982;Gogel, 1968;Gogel & Mertens, 1967) have shown that the judged size of a familiar object corresponds very well to its real size, and judged distance corresponds to the actual distance at which that size would produce the given retinal size. In other studies (Baird, 1963;Park & Michaelson, 1974), an object is presented and the observer is told that it is the same size as a familiar object; distance judgments correspond quite well to the distance at which that object would produce the given retinal image.It is not clear what the effect would be if an instruction regarding an object's size was not associated with a familiar object. In this case, an observer would have to interpret the object in terms of the retinal image and cognitive information. Coltheart (1970) reported that subjects could do this very well; Park and Michaelson (1974), on the other hand, reported that size instruction had no effect on distance judgments. Since it is not possible to determine why these results differ, the present experiment was undertaken, in part, as an attempt to resolve this conflict.Reprint requests should be sent to Zita E. Tyer, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030.Only Coltheart (1969) has tested the effect of verbal distance information on observers' size estimates. In Coltheart's (1969) experiment, subjects judged the size of a stimulus more accurately when they were told its distance than when they were not. It is unfortunate, however, in terms of stimulus control, that the instruction was the same distance as that at which the object was actually located. It is not possible to determine if the accurate judgments were entirely a function of the instruction or were enhanced by un...

show abstract

Directional separation and the size cue to distance

Gogel

Sturm

1971

Psychol. Forsch.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of verbal size information upon visual judgments of absolute distance

Cited by 14 publications

References 13 publications

Distance judgments under different size-information conditions

Distance judgments under different size-information conditions

Instruction effects on size and distance judgments

Directional separation and the size cue to distance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About