The Limits of Over-constancy

Joynson, R. B.; Newson, L. John; May, Darrel Simon

doi:10.1080/17470216508416434

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In experiments of this type the trend is always toward underconstancy (Gilinsky,1951;Gogel, 1964;Harway, 1963) . It also is usually true that underconstancy occurs when distance in a longitudinal plane is estimated directly, though interpretation of previous data is difficult because of differences among comparison methods, and because of the great variability of estimates obtained from groups of observers (Epstein, 1963;Gibson, Bergmann, & Purdy, 1955;Joynson, Newson, & May, 1965). In our work the exponent deviated negatively from 1.0 for distance only upon distance estimates.…”

Section: Stmentioning

confidence: 44%

Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments

Baird

Biersdorf

1967

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Size-constancy refers to the event that an object of constant physical size is judged to be such, regardless of its location within the three-dimensional physical environment. In the laboratory when size judgments are based upon information received by the visual sense, perfect size-constancy seldom occurs, a result not in keeping with certain functionalist theories of perception (Gibson, 1950; Taylor, 1962). Only a particular combination of instructions, stimulus, and response factors lead to size-constancy (Baird, 1965a;Carlson, 1962;Epstein, 1963), and these results probably can be treated as special cases within a more comprehensive theory (e.g., Akishige, 1961). Before such a theory can be operational, however, several key issues need to be settled. This paper describes some progress toward these prerequisite goals.First, we have extended the range of quantitative data collected for size and distance judgments under Objective instructions and full-cue conditions. The majority of previous results were gathered with a single method on a single value of a dimension such as relative distance or stimulus orientation. We used an extended stimulus series in three conditions. In one situation a relative-size judgment was made between a comparison stimulus at one distance and a standard stimulus at a number of different distances, when both were in a frontal plane. The second situation also involved relative size, but the stimuli were placed flat on a table extending away from the observer and beneath his primary lines of sight. In the third situation ratio estimates of distance along the table were obtained. The same two observers were used in all conditions, and the relative positions of the comparison and standard were varied.Our second concern was theoretical. Since the functionalist theory leading to size-constancy predictions is based upon metric measures of stimuli, and since this approach is inadequate when applied to most data on size and distance, we decided to explore an alternative measure-the subtended visual angle of stimuli at the eye. The task set the observer then is presumed to be the production or estimation of certain visual-angle ratios between the standard and comparison stimuli. The exact ratios depend upon the relative spatial positions of stimuli including their orientation to the eye and ground. Different stimulus and instruction variables require different ratio productions of visual angles. At present we cannot predict exactly which ratio is appropriate for each experimental condition. The important point is that the law of the visual angle is not restricted to a ratio of 1.0 in which the visual angles of the comparison and standard are equal, but is extended to include many other ratios as well.The next step is to defi~e quantitatively the relations among theoretical visual-angle ratios and those actually produced or estimated by observers. When metric measures (arithmetic) are used in graphic plots of theoretical and judged size, the resulting curves are not always linear. It is to our ...

show abstract

Section: Stmentioning

confidence: 44%

Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments

Baird

Biersdorf

1967

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the cardboard target adjacent to the woman, the metric size information is provided by the familiar size of the woman. Given that size constancy prevails at appreciable distances (Gibson, 1950;Joynson, Newson, & May, 1965), observers will perceive the two cardboard targets as equal in objective size. It follows, therefore, that observers have potential information about the metric size of the cardboard target adjacent to the board and, therefore, of the board.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…Size estimates obtained with this method seem to follow constancy or overconstancy. Joynson, Newson, and May (1965) showed that an unfamiliar object is estimated to be larger at greater viewing distances. Eriksson and Zetterberg (1975) indicated that the size estimates for a familiar object of fixed size are constant over viewing distances of 3-150 m. Higashiyama and Kitano (1991) demonstrated that size estimates for an unfamiliar object increase as the viewing distance increases from 40 to 160 m, whereas size estimates for a familiar object remain constant over distance.…”

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

The Limits of Over-constancy

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments

Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About