Apparent distance as a function of familiar size.

Ono, Hiroshi

doi:10.1037/h0026879

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If in total darkness a familiar target is illuminated, a subject is able to accurately estimate its distance. The key findings were first reported by Hastorf (1950) and Ittelson (1951); subsequently verified by Baird (1963), Coltheart (1969aColtheart ( , 1969b, and Ono (1969); and reaffirmed more recently by Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, and Tyer (1982). Similarly, if the distance to an illuminated target presented in total darkness is known, a subject can accurately state its metric size (Coltheart, 1970;Park & Michaelson, 1974).…”

mentioning

confidence: 59%

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH) was examined for remembered and imaged stimuli. In Experiment 1, subjects gave remembered and imaged distances of familiar objects and imaged distance of nondescript rods. The relationship between stated size and distance is more adequately described by power functions with exponents less than 1 than by the more restricted SDIH (exponent of 1). In Experiment 2, subjects gave distance estimates to recalled and imaged familiar objects and described the visual context in which each object was situated. A different group then sorted the contexts into categories based on general similarity. There were no significant differences between distance estimates based on memory and those based on imagery, and the visual contexts were not sorted according to whether they were generated in the memory or in the imagery conditions. In Experiment 3, subjects estimated the distances to objects in an outdoor setting. A linear relationship was found between estimated and physical distance, suggesting that the lower exponents obtained in Experiments 1 and 2 were not artifacts of the distance judgment procedure.The authors thank Jarnshed Bharucha, Julian Hochberg, Margaret Jean Intons-Peterson, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to John C. Baird, Department of Psychology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755.The visual angle at overflow, cf> in Equation 1, is taken to be a constant for each subject and each class of stimuli. (Note that if Sand D are specified, this is a one-parameter model, and that in Equation lb the y-intercept of the function is zero.) The maximum size of the imaged visual angle is not constant, however, as shown by the wide range of values (13°to 50°) that Kosslyn (1978) obtained for different classes of objects. The SDIH appears to be satisfied, but different linear functions (slopes in Equation I) hold for different categories of objects. More importantly, the visual angle calculated along the best fitting function for a particular class does not remain constant when largerIn the course of examining the cognitive resources utilized in visual imagery, Kosslyn (1978) measured the maximum extent of the visual field used in visual imagery. He found a linear relationship between the stated size of a familiar object and the minimum distance at which the entire object could be portrayed in an image. This distance, the point at which an imaged object overflowed, was taken to delineate the maximum visual angle (boundaries) of the "mind's eye." Such a result suggests that the "imaged" relationship between known size and distance agrees with the size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH): for a fixed visual angle (cf», the ratio of perceived size (S) to perceived distance (D) of an object in real space is constant: tan e = SID D = S/tancf>.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 59%

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a number of studies have demonstrated convincingly that familiar size influences adult subjects' judgments of object distance (Baird, 1963;Dinnerstein, 1967;Epstein, 1963Epstein, , 1965Epstein & Baratz, 1964;Eriksson & Zetterberg, 1975;Fitzpatrick, Pasnak, & Tyer, 1982;Gogel, 1968Gogel, , 1969Gogel & Mertens, 1968;Ittelson, 1951aIttelson, , 1951bNewman, 1972;Ono, 1969), one important criticism of these studies has not been adequately addressed. In a critique of Ittelson's (1951a) study, Hochberg and Hochberg (1953) argued that Ittleson's subjects might not have perceived the stimulus objects to be at the distances they reported; instead, they may have consciously inferred the distances at which familiar objects would project various visual angles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Infants’ sensitivity to familiar size: The effect of memory on spatial perception

Granrud

Haake

Yonas

1985

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated infants' sensitivity to familiar size as information for the distances of objects with which they had had only brief experience. Each experiment had two phases: a familiarization phase and a test phase. During the familiarization phase, the infant played with a pair of different-sized objects for 10 min. During the test phase, a pair of objects, identical to those seen in the familiarization phase but now equal in size, were presented to the infant at a fixed distance under monocular or binocular viewing conditions. In the test phase of Experiment 1, 7-month-old infants viewing the objects monocularly showed a significant preference to reach for the object that resembled the smaller object in the familiarization phase. Seven-monthold infants in the binocular viewing condition reached equally to the two test phase objects. These results indicate that, in the monocular condition, the 7-month-olds used knowledge about the objects' sizes, acquired during the familiarization phase, to perceive distance from the test objects' visual angles, and that they reached preferentially for the apparently nearer object. The lack of a reaching preference in the binocular condition rules out interpretations of the results not based on the objects' perceived distances. The results, therefore, indicate that 7-month-old infants can use memory to mediate spatial perception. The implications of this finding for the debate between direct and indirect theories of visual perception are discussed. In the test phase of Experiment 2, 5-month-old infants viewing the objects monocularly showed no reaching preference. These infants, therefore, showed no evidence of sensitivity to familiar size as distance information.

show abstract

“…The rationale for considering relative size as a cue to relative distance is based on the fact that the same object produces a different difference in visual directions at various distances. Its effectiveness has been well documented (e.g., Epstein, 1961;Gogel, Hartman, & Harker, 1957;Hochberg & Hochberg, 1952;Hochberg & McAlister, 1955;Ono, 1966Ono, , 1969, although the relevant variable in those studies was thought to be different retinal image sizes. In other words, whenever 5 has information concerning, or assumes, stimulus identity (i.e., that the stimuli presented are the same stimulus or of constant linear size), variations in the perceived angular size of the stimulus may serve as a relative size cue to relative distance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception

Komoda

Ono

1974

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between perceived size and distance and oculomotor adjustments were assessed in two experiments. In both experiments, Ss were required to make scalar linear size, angular size, and distance judgments of stimuli subtending a constant retinal image size at different levels of convergence. The results of the first experiment indicate that the perceived linear size, angular size, and distance of the stimulus decreased with increased convergence, the decrease in perceived linear size being greater than that of perceived angular size. While again showing a decrease in perceived linear and angular size, the results of the second experiment also show that there was a smaller decrease in perceived distance with increased convergence when Ss continued to view the stimulus as convergence was changed than when they did not view the stimulus as convergence was changed. The implications these results have for size and distance perception are discussed.

show abstract

Apparent distance as a function of familiar size.

Cited by 18 publications

References 15 publications

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

Infants’ sensitivity to familiar size: The effect of memory on spatial perception

Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About