2021
DOI: 10.1167/jov.21.10.21
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Familiar size affects the perceived size and distance of real objects even with binocular vision

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
32
3

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
1
32
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, therefore, the objects seem to have helped determine a target’s position but not its size in a 2D scene. This does not align with the past findings, where familiar size was found to affect both perceived size and distance [ 24 ]. Maltz et al found people perceived Rubik’s cubes as larger and further away than dice when they were matched to the same physical sizes and distances [ 24 ].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Interestingly, therefore, the objects seem to have helped determine a target’s position but not its size in a 2D scene. This does not align with the past findings, where familiar size was found to affect both perceived size and distance [ 24 ]. Maltz et al found people perceived Rubik’s cubes as larger and further away than dice when they were matched to the same physical sizes and distances [ 24 ].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…This does not align with the past findings, where familiar size was found to affect both perceived size and distance [ 24 ]. Maltz et al found people perceived Rubik’s cubes as larger and further away than dice when they were matched to the same physical sizes and distances [ 24 ]. However, the familiar size affected size perception more when viewing an object monocularly compared to when viewing it binocularly.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Participants received course credit for their participation. Data from the 22 participants in this study in VR were compared with data from the 32 participants in physical reality in the Maltz et al [26] study, with no overlap in participants. Our sample size was smaller than that of Maltz et al because that study demonstrated large and highly significant effects (see tables 1 and 2 of Maltz et al [26]).…”
Section: Experiments 1 (A) Methods (I) Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All images were presented on a uniform white background. To facilitate judging the actual image size on the screen, we allowed participants to use all cues about the images’ distances [ 21 ]: participants viewed the images on a clearly visible screen, with two eyes and no restrictions on their eye or head movements. All dimensions of the experiment scale with the (unknown) screen size of each participant; the values we present here are approximations for a 14″ screen.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%