‘Seeing’ proximal representations: Testing attitudes to the relationship between vision and images

Abstract

Corrections applied by the visual system, like size constancy, provide us with a coherent and stable perspective from ever-changing retinal images. In the present experiment we investigated how willing adults are to examine their own vision as if it were an uncorrected 2D image, much like a photograph. We showed adult participants two lines on a wall, both of which were the same length but one was closer to the participant and hence appeared visually longer. Despite the instruction to base their judgements on appearance specifically, approximately half of the participants judged the lines to appear the same. When they took a photo of the lines and were asked how long they appeared in the image their responses shifted; now the closer line appeared longer. However, when they were asked again about their own view they reverted to their original response. These results suggest that many adults are resistant to imagining their own vision as if it were a flat image. We also place these results within the context of recent views on visual perspective-taking.

The “proximal depiction effect” of indulgent (versus non-indulgent) foods on consumer responses

“…Prior research shows that people misjudge proximal representations in 2-D pictures – for example, perceiving closely pictured lines as longer (Samuel et al , 2021). Furthermore, misrepresentation of size is likely to be higher for indulgent food as these products evoke an attitude ambivalence because of the co-existence of desire and health-threat (Cornil et al , 2014).…”

It’s Not You, It’s Me: A Review of Individual Differences in Visuospatial Perspective Taking

“…Such effects have been attributed to naive or folk optics (i.e., folk beliefs about how vision works). These beliefs vary from person to person and can be inconsistent with accepted science and even people’s own declarative knowledge (Croucher et al, 2002; Samuel, Hagspiel, Cole, & Eacott, 2021). Different theories and heuristics related to visual reasoning, such as imagining top-down geometric viewpoints or applying past experience of moving through similar scenes, lead to different responses to the same problems depending on whom is asked (Bertamini & Soranzo, 2018; Croucher et al, 2002).…”