Depth adjacency and the rod-and-frame illusion

Gogel, Walter C.; Newton, Robert E.

doi:10.3758/bf03204105

Cited by 34 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, the results of Experiment 2, Figure 1, also fail to confirm this possibility since frames of equal retinal size but at different distances yielded equivalent RFEs. It is conceivable that the different methods of measuring the RFE in the present study and that of Gogel and Newton (1975) may somehow contribute to the disparate results, but in any event, without further confirmation, the proposed role of distance in the RFE is dubious.…”

mentioning

confidence: 46%

“…The conclusion to be drawn is that retinal size controls the RFE. This has several implications, one of which relates to the proposal of Gogel and Newton (1975) that the RFE should increase with increasing convergence distance to the rod, given that the relative depth between rod and frame and frame-tilt magnitude were held constant. The results of Experiment 1, shown in Table 1, given no indication of such an outcome even though large variations in both convergence and apparent distance had occurred.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determinants of the rod and frame effect: The role of retinal size

Ebenholtz

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, base-out prisms were used to alter perceived size and distance to a luminous rod and frame while the retinal size remained unchanged. The rod-and-frame effect (RFE) was the same, whether the display was viewed directly or through the prisms. In Experiment 2, one large and one small rod-and-frame display were placed at distances such that they produced identical retinal angles. This was replicated at three different sets of distances. Perceived size and distance of the large and small frame of identical retinal angle interacted with the observation distance, such that at near distances the large frame was perceived as larger and farther than the small frame while, at far distances, both types of estimates converged to a constant value. In contrast, the RFE was identical for the large and small frames matched in retinal angle, but diminished with distance. In both experiments, the RFE varied precisely with variation in retinal angle. Implications of the role of retinal angle in the RFE and for the interpretation of individual differences were discussed.Previous research (Ebenholtz & Benzschawel, (1977) has established that the magnitude of the rod-and-frame effect (RFE), first investigated by Witkin and Asch (1948), is greatly influenced by the distance between the observer and the luminous frame. Within a range from 1 to 5 m, the RFE approximated a linear inverse function of distance with essentially no RFE at all at 5 m. The question examined in the present paper concerns the mechanisms that conceivably underlie this result.With increasing distance between the visual display and the subject, three changes occur, each of which could, in principle, cause the reduction in RFE. First, the retinal size of the pattern will vary inversely with distance and, assuming that subjects tend to direct their focus toward the center of the frame, there will result a shift in retinal stimulation from peripheral to foveal. Either one or both of these retinal factors, i.e., the size change or the shift to foveal viewing, could contribute to the reduction in magnitude of the RFE. Second, changes in distance, especially within a few meters, will be accompanied by changes i'n apparent distance and, third, at distances beyond about 2 m size constancy, based solely upon the cues of convergence and accommodation, will begin to fail (Leibowitz & Moore, 1966), with the consequence that detectable changes in apparent size will occur. Thus, changes in retinal size, apparent distance, or apparent size, singly or jointly, may be responsible for the effects of distance on the RFE.The research was supported in part by Grant MH 13006. The author is grateful to Jonathan Beers for his aid in directing subjects in Experiment I and to Judith Callan for directing Experiment 2 and for data analysis. 531The following studies explore these possibilities. In Experiment 1, the RFE, obtained when viewing through a pair of base-out prisms, was compared with the RFE determined under normal nonprism viewing. By increasing convergence, the rod...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 46%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of the rod and frame effect: The role of retinal size

Ebenholtz

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was equivalent to the maximum depth separation examined by Gogel and Newton (1975). Figure 2 shows the relative positions of rod and frame in the POP studies.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, Gogel and Newton (1975) have shown that, with an upright rod and tilted frame set stereoscopically at 100 and 160 em, respectively, perceived rod tilt diminished significantly relative to a coplanar condition. Since the display used by Gogel and Newton (1975) projected about 10 deg of arc sidet , it is possible that the reduced illusion they obtained belonged to the domain of small-frame phenomena in which the line" and frame produce an orientation contrast illusion This research was supported in part by NIH Grant EY02264. S. M. Ebenholtz's mailing address is: Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Absence of depth processing in the large-frame rod-and-frame effect

Ebenholtz

Glaser

1982

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attenuation of the rod-and-frame effect (RFE) with depth separation (Gogel& Newton, 1975) was investigated with the rod and frame in either intersecting or parallel depth planes (PDP). In the former case, in which either the top of the rod or the frame was inclined 45 deg away from the observer, no attenuation was found for frames projecting a retinal angle of 39.2 or 13.5 deg. In the PDP paradigm, the rod was optically 60 em nearer the observer than was the frame. The depth adjacency effect of Gogel and Newton was replicated, but only for small retinal angles (7.2 and 6.8 deg) of the frame and for a 15-deg frame tilt, but not for larger retinal angles (39.2 and 12.7 deg) or for frames tilted at 22 deg. The absence of attenuation with depth separation

show abstract

The Theory of Phenomenal Psychology

Carini¹

Heinz Werner and Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depth adjacency and the rod-and-frame illusion

Cited by 34 publications

References 18 publications

Determinants of the rod and frame effect: The role of retinal size

Determinants of the rod and frame effect: The role of retinal size

Absence of depth processing in the large-frame rod-and-frame effect

The Theory of Phenomenal Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About