Estimates of Size and Distance Underwater

Luria, S. M.; Kinney, Jo Ann S.; Weissman, Seymour

doi:10.2307/1420989

Cited by 42 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After repeatedly donning and removing spectacles, wearers commonly report disappearance of the depth distortions, illusory visual motion, and coordination difficulties they had experienced earlier. A similar outcome is revealed by the comparison between practiced and novice deep-sea divers, the former group experiencing relatively little face-mask-induced visual distortion when first entering the water and very rapid readaptation upon emerging (Kinney, Luria, Weitzman, & Markowitz, 1970;Luria, Kinney, & Weissman, 1967).…”

supporting

confidence: 59%

Alternating prism exposure causes dual adaptation and generalization to a novel displacement

Welch

Bridgeman

Anand

et al. 1993

Perception & Psychophysics

178

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 59%

Alternating prism exposure causes dual adaptation and generalization to a novel displacement

Welch

Bridgeman

Anand

et al. 1993

Perception & Psychophysics

178

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although a target under water is localized optically at about three-quarters of its real distance, the judged distance was much greater than the optical distance. Kent (1966) and Luria et al (1967) also found that the perceived distances of targets under water were larger than the optical distances. It is interesting that regardless of whether a scene is transformed by a convex mirror or water, the target is perceived to be further from where it should, optically, be localized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…It is also known that the optical distance of an object under water is less than that in air (Adolfson & Berghage, 1974). However, the object under water is reported to be localized at exactly the optical distance (Ono, O'Reilly, & Herman, 1970) or at a greater distance than the optical distance (Kent, 1966;Luria, Kinney, & Weissman, 1967;Ross, 1967). It seems that the visual system corrects such optically distorted scenes by selecting cues that may be appropriate for constructing visual space.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived distance of targets in convex mirrors

Higashiyama

Yokoyama

Shimono³

2001

Jpn Psychol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We investigated the perceived distance of targets in convex and plane mirrors. In Experiment 1, 20 subjects matched the distance of targets in a real scene to the distance of a virtual target in different mirrors. The matched distances were much larger for convex mirrors than for a plane mirror. In Experiment 2, 20 subjects viewed two targets in a mirror and adjusted their own positions so that the distance to the closer target was perceived to equal the distance between the targets. The mean distance to the closer target was smaller for the convex mirrors than for the plane mirror. In Experiment 3, 20 subjects adjusted the position of a target so that the distance to it in a mirror was perceived to equal the distance designated by the experimenter. The best-fitting power functions showed that the scaling factors were larger for the convex mirrors than for the plane mirror, but the exponents were smaller for the convex mirrors than for the plane mirror. It is suggested that distance in the convex mirrors was perceived to be larger than in the plane mirror, and that the growth of perceived distance in the convex mirrors was slower than in the plane mirror.

show abstract

“…(It is less for close objects, because the air space in the facemask is a significant proportion of the viewing distance.) The effect that the magnification has upon apparent size varies with the apparent distance-divers tend to locate objects further than the optical distance (Luria, Kinney, & Weissman, 1967;Ross, 1967), and the overestimation of size increases systematically with the apparent distance (Ross, 1967). This would be expected from the size-distance invariance principle.…”

Section: R Eyementioning

confidence: 91%