Stimulus and Response Factors in Size Instruction Effects

Baird, John C.

doi:10.2466/pms.1965.21.3.915

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is now established that the phenomenon of size-eonstancy is a special case of size judgment under fulI cues with distance variable, and that a variety of judgments is possible with the same stimulus display (Baird, 1965b;Carlson & Tassone, 1967;Epstein, 1963). The purpose of the Distance model is to describe alI of these size judgments in a common way.…”

Section: Ratio Model the Distance Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a theory of frontal-size judgments

Baird¹

1968

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ratio Model the Distance Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a theory of frontal-size judgments

Baird¹

1968

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the laboratory when size judgments are based upon information received by the visual sense, perfect size-constancy seldom occurs, a result not in keeping with certain functionalist theories of perception (Gibson, 1950; Taylor, 1962). Only a particular combination of instructions, stimulus, and response factors lead to size-constancy (Baird, 1965a;Carlson, 1962;Epstein, 1963), and these results probably can be treated as special cases within a more comprehensive theory (e.g., Akishige, 1961). Before such a theory can be operational, however, several key issues need to be settled.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments

Baird

Biersdorf

1967

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Size-constancy refers to the event that an object of constant physical size is judged to be such, regardless of its location within the three-dimensional physical environment. In the laboratory when size judgments are based upon information received by the visual sense, perfect size-constancy seldom occurs, a result not in keeping with certain functionalist theories of perception (Gibson, 1950; Taylor, 1962). Only a particular combination of instructions, stimulus, and response factors lead to size-constancy (Baird, 1965a;Carlson, 1962;Epstein, 1963), and these results probably can be treated as special cases within a more comprehensive theory (e.g., Akishige, 1961). Before such a theory can be operational, however, several key issues need to be settled. This paper describes some progress toward these prerequisite goals.First, we have extended the range of quantitative data collected for size and distance judgments under Objective instructions and full-cue conditions. The majority of previous results were gathered with a single method on a single value of a dimension such as relative distance or stimulus orientation. We used an extended stimulus series in three conditions. In one situation a relative-size judgment was made between a comparison stimulus at one distance and a standard stimulus at a number of different distances, when both were in a frontal plane. The second situation also involved relative size, but the stimuli were placed flat on a table extending away from the observer and beneath his primary lines of sight. In the third situation ratio estimates of distance along the table were obtained. The same two observers were used in all conditions, and the relative positions of the comparison and standard were varied.Our second concern was theoretical. Since the functionalist theory leading to size-constancy predictions is based upon metric measures of stimuli, and since this approach is inadequate when applied to most data on size and distance, we decided to explore an alternative measure-the subtended visual angle of stimuli at the eye. The task set the observer then is presumed to be the production or estimation of certain visual-angle ratios between the standard and comparison stimuli. The exact ratios depend upon the relative spatial positions of stimuli including their orientation to the eye and ground. Different stimulus and instruction variables require different ratio productions of visual angles. At present we cannot predict exactly which ratio is appropriate for each experimental condition. The important point is that the law of the visual angle is not restricted to a ratio of 1.0 in which the visual angles of the comparison and standard are equal, but is extended to include many other ratios as well.The next step is to defi~e quantitatively the relations among theoretical visual-angle ratios and those actually produced or estimated by observers. When metric measures (arithmetic) are used in graphic plots of theoretical and judged size, the resulting curves are not always linear. It is to our ...

show abstract

“…If the task is not appropriately specified by the experimenter as being distally or proximally focused, subjects might need to figure out for themselves which attribute of the stimuli they are supposed to judge (Sedgwick, 1986;Todorovi c, 2002a). There are indications that this can in fact happen, and that insufficiently precise instructions may be understood by some subjects in the distal sense, by others subjects in the proximal sense, and by still other subjects as involving compromises between the two senses (see Baird, 1965;Joynson, 1958;Landauer & Rodger, 1964;Lichte & Borreson, 1967).…”

Section: Studies Involving Bothmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Are Visual Illusions?*

Todorović

2020

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual illusions have been a popular topic of study for a long time, but in recent years, a number of authors have questioned the coherence of this notion. This article deals in depth with ways in which illusions have been, could be, and should be defined and with various criticisms and different conceptions of the notion of illusions. After a review of definitions of illusions in the relevant literature, a more comprehensive but also more restrictive framework is presented, involving both veridicality and illusoriness, and is illustrated using two variants of a 2 × 2 scheme for the presentation of illusions. Many different aspects of illusions are discussed. A set of criteria for illusionhood is listed. Criticisms of the notion of illusions are presented, commented upon, and responded to. Conceptions of illusions differing from the one advocated here are discussed. Throughout the paper, novel variations of illusions are shown, and problems with accounts of some well-known illusions are noted. Examples of strong context effects which are not considered to be illusions are presented. It is concluded that the notion of visual illusions, suitably reformulated, is still viable.

show abstract

Stimulus and Response Factors in Size Instruction Effects

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

Toward a theory of frontal-size judgments

Toward a theory of frontal-size judgments

Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments

What Are Visual Illusions?*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About