The judgment of distance on a plane surface

Cook, Michael

doi:10.3758/bf03214300

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…001. This result is consistent with previous research demonstrating a compression of perceived space for distances greater than about 3 m (e.g., Cook, 1978;Norman, Todd, Perotti, & Tittle, 1996). Overall, the participants primed with the elderly stereotype judged the distances to be longer than the control participants did (control: M = 8.01 m; stereotype: M = 9.96 m), thus accurately estimating the smaller distances (between 4 and 8 m) and overestimating the larger ones.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Embodied perception with others’ bodies in mind: Stereotype priming influence on the perception of spatial environment

Chambon

2009

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Embodied perception with others’ bodies in mind: Stereotype priming influence on the perception of spatial environment

Chambon

2009

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The results of these two studies suggest that apparent intervals of fixed size increase with viewing distance. With the method of equal-appearing intervals, on the other hand, Cook (1978) indicated that, at distances of2 m or less, apparent distance is proportional to objective distance. Thus, distance estimates seem accurate as a whole, although they may depend on many factors.…”

Section: Definitions and A Review Of Close Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Higashiyama

Shimono

1994

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard 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...

show abstract

“…A number of studies (Baird & Wagner, 1982;Cook, 1978;Da Silva, 1983, 1985Galanter & Galanter, 1973;Kuroda, 1971;Ohno, 1972;M. Teghtsoonian & R. Teghtsoonian, 1969;R.…”

Section: Scales For Perceived Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

The perception of vertical and horizontal distances in outdoor settings

Higashiyama

Ueyama

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, perceived vertical and horizontal distances in outdoor settings were investigated. Horizontal distances were adjusted by 70 subjects to make them appear equal to vertical distances ranging from 2 to 47 m. The results showed that (1) the matched horizontal distance is represented as a linear function of vertical distance; (2) the slope of the linear function is generally larger than unity, suggesting that when vertical distance is physically equal to horizontal distance, vertical distance appears larger than horizontal distance; (3) physiological muscular variables such as eye, head, and body position are not crucial in judging vertical and horizontal distances; (4) vertical distance of a building appears larger when viewed from afar than when viewed from nearby. 151The purpose of this study was to determine whether, in outdoor settings, horizontal distance or vertical distance would appear to be longer. We refer to horizontal distance as the distance along the ground surface and vertical distance as the distance along the direction of gravity . An example of horizontal distance is the distance from an observer to a building, and an example of vertical distance is the height of the building. Figure I shows four different viewing positions from which comparisons of vertical and horizontal distances can be made. Figure la illustrates the look-up condition, with the subject standing near the base of the building; Figure lb illustrates the look-at condition, with the subject standing on the ground away from the building; Figure lc illustrates the look-down condition, with the subject on the roof or a floor of the building looking down at the ground; Figure Id illustrates the Iie-down condition, with the subject lying on his/her back near the base of the building.A number of studies have been performed under the look-up and lie-down conditions. Morinaga (1935) showed that for a vertical standard distance of 1 m in the look-up condition, the matched horizontal distance increased by 4 % to 14% and did not change substantially with the position of eye and head. Makishita (1947, Experiment 1) determined equidistant curves as a function of elevation angle in the look-up condition, and showed that the matched vertical distance was smaller than the matched horizontal distance. Osaka (1947) demonstrated that for vertical standard distances of 4 to 12 m, the matched horizontal distance increased by 12%to 21 %in the lookup condition, but that this trend disappeared when the sub-

show abstract

The judgment of distance on a plane surface

Cited by 29 publications

References 23 publications

Embodied perception with others’ bodies in mind: Stereotype priming influence on the perception of spatial environment

Embodied perception with others’ bodies in mind: Stereotype priming influence on the perception of spatial environment

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

The perception of vertical and horizontal distances in outdoor settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About