An analysis of perceptions from changes in optical size

Abstract

The allocation of perceived size and perceived motion or displacement in depth resulting from retinal size changes (changes in the visual angle of the stimulus) was investigated in situations in which all other cues of perceived changes in distance were absent. The allocation process was represented by the size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH), in which, for a given change in visual angle, the perceived depth was determined only by the amount of size constancy available. The changes in perceived size and perceived distance (perceived depth) were measured by kinesthetic observer (open-loop) adjustments in five situations. These situations consisted of optical expansions or contractions presented successively or simultaneously or as a mixture of successive and simultaneous presentations. The amounts of perceived motion or perceived displacement in depth obtained by kinesthetic measures were compared with those obtained from size constancy measures as applied to the SDIH. This latter measure accounted for more of the perceived depth obtained from simultaneous and mixed situations than it did for the perceived depth from the successive situations and more for the perceived depth obtained from the expansion than from the contraction situations, whether these were simultaneous or mixed. Perceived rigidity of the stimulus (perfect size constancy) clearly was not obtained in any of the situations. Significant partial size constancy and some predictive ability of the perceived sagittal motion was found using the SDIHin all the situations except in the successively presented contraction situation, with the predictive ability from the SDIH increasing with increases in the amount of size constancy. The difference between the observer's measures of the perceived motion or displacement in depth and the amount of perceived motion or displacement predicted from the perceptions of linear size using the SDIH is asserted to be due to a cognitive process associated with the perception of the different stimulus sizes as off-sized objects..The depth cue of optical expansion or contraction (successive optical changes in size) and the depth cue of relative size or perspective (simultaneous optical changes in size) have some similar and some different characteristics. A similar characteristic is that in both situations the size of the stimulus on the eye changes systematically, producing perceptions of linear size and motion or displacement in distance even when the conditions are such that no other sources of information as to changing size or distance are available to the observer except the single variable of the changing visual angle of the stimulus. The perceived depth or perceived sagittal motion and the changes in perceived linear size resulting from the retinal changes or differences, under these circumstances, indicates that an increase in one of these perceptions often is accompanied by a decrease in the other. This can be described as a tradeoff between smaller changes in perceived linear size (an increasing amount of si...

The visual perception of lines on the road

“…The same interpretations have been found for cases in which objects have been looked down at from above (Gogel, 1998;Gogel & Eby, 1997;Ohba, 1966). Research has also shown that for objects high up in their field of view, observers make similar underestimations.…”

“…This is consistent with work that shows that observers do not process visual angles precisely and tend to enlarge smaller visual angles (Higashiyama, 1992). Much work has also shown that past history and significance, familiar size, and other cognitive processes may "add to" the visual angle or our phenomenal impressions of object size, in order to increase object size toward the actual size (Foley et al, 2004;Gilinsky, 1951;Gogel, 1974Gogel, , 1998Gogel & Da Silva, 1987;Higashiyama & Kitano, 1991;Matsushima et al, 2005;Thouless, 1931). Although verbal estimates were far longer than the visual angle predictions, it seems that the observers were utilizing some characteristics of visual angle, because the estimates of length doubled with a halving of the distance to the lines.…”

Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size

“…In a discussion of the absence of a clear demonstration of perfect size constancy, Gogel (1998) argued that cognitive factors may disrupt a clear Euclidean representation of visual arrays. The cognitive factors are quite likely those that influence the memory of the size of the object.…”

Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images

“…For small θ s, Equation 6 approximates S′/D′ ϭ θ. Authors examining visual space perception (Baird & Wagner, 1991;Gogel, 1998;Hershenson, 1992), haptic space perception (Barac-Cikoja & Turvey, 1995), and space cognition (Hubbard, Kall, & Baird, 1989) have developed their arguments on the basis of Equation 6. However, several studies (Gogel, Wist, & Harker, 1963;Higashiyama & Kitano, 1991;Vogel & Teghtsoonian, 1972) have provided evidence that Equation 6 is too restrictive to describe the relations among S′, D′, and θ. Alternatively, a number of studies (Foley, 1967(Foley, , 1968Higashiyama & Shimono, 1994;Oyama, 1974) have assumed that S′/D′ is a power function of θ:…”