Familiar size and the theory of off-sized perceptions

Gogel, Walter C.; Silva, José Aparecido da

doi:10.3758/bf03208233

Cited by 60 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But evidence suggests that familiar size does not operate as an independent quantitative visual distance cue, but only permits cognitive inferences of size and absolute depth in pictures (Gogel, 1969b;Gogel & Da Silva, 1987;Predebon, 1993) 9 .…”

Section: Explaining Monocular Stereopsis On the Basis Of Absolute Depmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a new theory of stereopsis.

Vishwanath¹

2014

Psychological Review

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans can obtain an unambiguous perception of depth and 3-dimensionality with one eye or when viewing a pictorial image of a 3-dimensional scene. However, the perception of depth when viewing a real scene with both eyes is qualitatively different: there is a vivid impression of tangible solid form and immersive negative space. This perceptual phenomenon, referred to as "stereopsis", has been among the central puzzles of perception since the time of da Vinci. After Wheatstone's invention of the stereoscope in 1838, stereopsis has conventionally been explained as a by-product of binocular vision or visual parallax. However, this explanation is challenged by the observation that the impression of stereopsis can be induced in single pictures under monocular viewing. Here I propose an alternative hypothesis that stereopsis is a qualitative visual experience related to the perception of egocentric spatial scale. Specifically, the primary phenomenal characteristic of stereopsis (the impression of 'real' separation in depth) is proposed to be linked to the precision with which egocentrically scaled depth (absolute depth) is derived. Since conscious awareness of this precision could help guide the planning of motor action, the hypothesis provides a functional account for the important phenomenal characteristic associated with stereopsis: the impression of interactability. By linking stereopsis to a generic perceptual attribute, rather than a specific cue, it provides a potentially more unified account of the variation of stereopsis in real scenes and pictures, and a basis for understanding why we can perceive depth in pictures despite conflicting visual signals. StereopsisVishwanath 3

show abstract

Section: Explaining Monocular Stereopsis On the Basis Of Absolute Depmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a new theory of stereopsis.

Vishwanath¹

2014

Psychological Review

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this finding is hardly novel (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al, 1982;Gogel & Da Silva, 1987;Predebon, 1mb), its significance for the familiar-size theory is that it makes it difficult to defend the theory by dismissing the size findings on the grounds that familiar size was an ineffective determinant of reports of distance and, by implication via the SDIH, perceived size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For example, the exponent of the power function relating perceived size to physical size is unaffected by whether or not the objects of the series have a familiar size (Predebon, 1992b), and experimental instructions that request judgments of perceived size (apparent instructions) typically yield either a very weak or a nonexistent effect of familiar size on direct reports of size (Gogel & Da Silva, 1987;Higashiyama, 1984;Predebon, 1992a).…”

Section: Supplementary Data Analysis General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…gardless of its actual distance) and on the unavoidably present residual oculomotor cues to distance (see Gogel & Da Silva, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The theory explains the effect of familiar size on direct reports of distance by assuming that off-sized perceptions allow observers to infer, or make a cognitive response to, the object's distance. Specifically, given the perspective bias (Carlson, 1977)-that is, the widespread belief that the apparent size of an object of constant physical size varies inversely with its distance-observers are likely to assume that a familiar object that appears smaller (larger) than normal is a physically normal-sized object at a greater (shorter) distance than the distance at which it is perceived to be (Gogel & Da Silva, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perceived size of familiar objects and the theory of off-sized perceptions

Predebon

1994

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, I examined the claim (Gogel, 1969;Gogel & Newton 1969) that familiar objects viewed under reduced stimulus conditions frequently appear to be off-sized (i.e., larger or smaller.than nor~al). In Experiments 1 and 2, I presented images of different familiar objects, one at a t~me, at d~stances of .1. and~m from the observers. The images were normal-, large-, or small-SIzed versions of familiar objects, and the observers judged the perceived size of each o?ject rela.tive to its familiar normal size. In Experiment 3, I presented normal-, large-, and smallSIzedversions of the same familiar object at physical distances of 1 and 2 m. The pattern of size results was similar across the three experiments. In general, normal-sized objects appeared normalto small-sized at the 1-m distance and small-sized at the 2-m distance; small-sized objects appeared small-sized at the 1-m distance and even smaller at the 2-m distance; and large-sized objects appeared normal-to large-sized at the 1-m distance and normal-to small-sized at the 2-m distance. The distance results of Experiment 3 indicated that familiar size was an effective determinant of reported distance. These results are consistent with Gogel's theory of off-sized perceptions and, more generally, with the claim that familiar size is not an important determinant of perceived size.

show abstract

Depth Perception and the Perception of Events

Proffítt¹,

Caudek²

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three fundamental questions are addressed: (1) What are the effective sources of optical information for perceiving spatial relationships and events? Complex natural environments provide a plethora of information potentially related to spatial layout. Psychophysical research investigates the efficacy and perceptual processing of these potential cues to depth and events. (2) How is this information combined by the perceptual system? Viewed in isolation, individual cues typically do not fully specify the environmental properties to which they relate. In general, the rules for projecting three‐dimensional layout onto the retina are unambiguously defined, whereas the inverse operation—from the image to the three‐dimensional projected scene—is not. (3) Do people perceive space and events accurately? Certainly, people act in the environment as if they represent its spatial relationships accurately; however, effective action can often be achieved without geometrically correct representations. From a pragmatic perspective, perceptual representations are accurate to the degree that they provide effective guidance for behavior. This issue is developed and discussed throughout the chapter.

show abstract

Familiar size and the theory of off-sized perceptions

Cited by 60 publications

References 37 publications

Toward a new theory of stereopsis.

Toward a new theory of stereopsis.

Perceived size of familiar objects and the theory of off-sized perceptions

Depth Perception and the Perception of Events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About