The role of instructions and familiar size in absolute judgments of size and distance

Fredebon, John

doi:10.3758/bf03211628

Cited by 41 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By objective size or objective distance, we mean the size or the distance that would be obtained if the subject measured it with a ruler, such as a meter stick (Gogel & Da Silva, 1987; Higashiyama, Ishikawa, & Tanaka, 1990; Kaess, 1980;Predebon, 1992).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images

Higashiyama

Shimono

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated spatial perception of virtual images that were produced by convex and plane mirrors. In Experiment 1, 36 subjects reproduced both the perceived size and the perceived distance of virtual images for five targets that had been placed at a real distance of 10 or 20 m. In Experiment 2, 30 subjects verbally judged both the perceived size and the perceived distance of virtual images for five targets that were placed at each of five real distances of 2.5 -45 m. In both experiments, the subjects received objective-size and objective-distance instructions. The results were that (1) size constancy was attained for a distance of up to 45 m, (2) distance was readily discriminated within this distance range, although virtual images produced by the mirror of strong curvature were judged to be farther away than those produced by the mirrors of less curvature, and (3) the ratio of perceived size to perceived distance was described as a power function of visual angle, and the ratio for the convex mirror was larger than that for the plane mirror. We compared the taking-into-account model and the direct perception model on the basis of a correlation analysis for proximal, virtual, and real levels of the stimuli. The taking-into-account model, which assumes that visual angle is transformed into perceived size by taking perceived distance into account, was supported by an analysis for the proximal level of stimuli. The direct perception model, which assumes that there is no inferential process between perceived size and perceived distance, was partially supported by an analysis for the distal level of the stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images

Higashiyama

Shimono

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This type of instruction, focusing on the participant's subjective experience, is known as an "apparent" instruction (Carlson, 1977). Apparent instructions are thought to direct the observers to base their judgments on more perceptual sources of spatial information (Predebon, 1992). On the contrary, participants can be instructed to perform a task assuming an "objective" perspective, in which the focus is on the participant's actual beliefs about the stimulus.…”

Section: Apparent and Objective Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, a participant performing the localisation task of could be asked to judge the location where they really think the tip of their fingertip is, regardless of their subjective experience. This type of approach is thought to direct the observers to base their judgments on more cognitive sources of spatial information where a sort of correction from the subjective feelings is supposed to be necessary (Predebon, 1992). Cognitive sources of information might reflect the participants' memory of the characteristics of object size (e.g., a hand) or their actual beliefs about the relevant size-distance relations.…”

Section: Apparent and Objective Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distorted body representations are robust to differences in experimental instructions

Tamè

Bumpus

Linkenauger

et al. 2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several recent reports have shown that even healthy adults maintain highly distorted representations of the size and shape of their body. These distortions have been shown to be highly consistent across different study designs and dependent measures. However, previous studies have found that visual judgments of size can be modulated by the experimental instructions used, for example, by asking for judgments of the participant's subjective experience of stimulus size (i.e., apparent instructions) versus judgments of actual stimulus properties (i.e., objective instructions).Previous studies investigating internal body representations have relied exclusively on 'apparent' instructions. Here, we investigated whether apparent versus objective instructions modulate findings of distorted body representations underlying position sense (Exp. 1), tactile distance perception (Exp. 2), as well as the conscious body image (Exp. 3). Our results replicate the characteristic distortions previously reported for each of these tasks and further show that these distortions are not affected by instruction type (i.e., apparent vs. objective). These results show that the distortions measured with these paradigms are robust to differences in instructions and do not reflect a dissociation between perception and belief.3

show abstract

“…For example, the exponent of the power function relating perceived size to physical size is unaffected by whether or not the objects of the series have a familiar size (Predebon, 1992b), and experimental instructions that request judgments of perceived size (apparent instructions) typically yield either a very weak or a nonexistent effect of familiar size on direct reports of size (Gogel & Da Silva, 1987;Higashiyama, 1984;Predebon, 1992a).…”

Section: Supplementary Data Analysis General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived size of familiar objects and the theory of off-sized perceptions

Predebon

1994

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, I examined the claim (Gogel, 1969;Gogel & Newton 1969) that familiar objects viewed under reduced stimulus conditions frequently appear to be off-sized (i.e., larger or smaller.than nor~al). In Experiments 1 and 2, I presented images of different familiar objects, one at a t~me, at d~stances of .1. and~m from the observers. The images were normal-, large-, or small-SIzed versions of familiar objects, and the observers judged the perceived size of each o?ject rela.tive to its familiar normal size. In Experiment 3, I presented normal-, large-, and smallSIzedversions of the same familiar object at physical distances of 1 and 2 m. The pattern of size results was similar across the three experiments. In general, normal-sized objects appeared normalto small-sized at the 1-m distance and small-sized at the 2-m distance; small-sized objects appeared small-sized at the 1-m distance and even smaller at the 2-m distance; and large-sized objects appeared normal-to large-sized at the 1-m distance and normal-to small-sized at the 2-m distance. The distance results of Experiment 3 indicated that familiar size was an effective determinant of reported distance. These results are consistent with Gogel's theory of off-sized perceptions and, more generally, with the claim that familiar size is not an important determinant of perceived size.

show abstract

The role of instructions and familiar size in absolute judgments of size and distance

Cited by 41 publications

References 20 publications

Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images

Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images

Distorted body representations are robust to differences in experimental instructions

Perceived size of familiar objects and the theory of off-sized perceptions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About