Toward a theory of frontal-size judgments

Baird, John C.

doi:10.3758/bf03210447

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This conclusion receives support, particularly from Experiments 1,2, and 3, in that, as expected, errors in the perceived egocentric distance of the object resulted in substantial errors in its perceived geographic motions. Such results are counter to theoretical views that question whether some perceptions can be used to predict others (Baird & Wagner, 1991;Wallach & Berson, 1989). The interrelation between perceptions found in the present study is consistent with a theory of phenomenal geometry (Gogel, 1990) in which phenomenal space is determined by three variables: (1) perceived distance, (2) perceived direction, and (3) the observer's perception of the observer's own motion.…”

Section: Perception Of Sagittal Motion 93contrasting

confidence: 53%

Determinants ofthe perception of sagittal motion

Gogel

Tietz

1992

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the change in the perceived distance of an object in three-dimensional space when the object and/or the observer's head is moved along the line of sight (sagittal motion) as a function of the perceived absolute (egocentric) distance of the object and the perceived motion of the head. To analyze the processes involved, two situations, labeled A and B, were used in four experiments. In Situation A, the observer was stationary and the perceived motion ofthe object was measured as the object was moved toward and away from the observer. In Situation B, the same visual information regarding the changing perceived egocentric distance between the observer and object was provided as in Situation A, but part or all of the change in visual egocentric distance was produced by the sagittal motion of the observer's head. A comparison of the perceived motion of the object in the two situations was used to measure the compensation in the perception of the motion of the object as a result ofthe head motion. Compensation was often clearly incomplete, and errors were often made in the perception of the motion of the stimulus object. A theory is proposed, which identifies the relation between the changes in the perceived egocentric distance of the object and the tandem motion of the object resulting from the perceived motion of the head to be the significant factor in the perception of the sagittal motion ofthe stimulus object in Situation B.If an object moves sagittally toward or away from a stationary observer, the changing egocentric distance of the object will be perceived, assuming that effective visual cues of object motion are available. The identical visual cues of sagittal motion between the observer and object can also be produced by keeping the object physically stationary and moving the observer toward or away from the object at the same speed and through the same distance as that previously used with the moving object. In order to perceive the object as moving in the former case and as stationary in the latter case, the observer must have proprioceptive or other information regarding his or her own stationariness or motion, respectively. Thus, kinesthetic and proprioceptive information regarding self-motion are thought to enable the observer to determine whether the changing visual cues of distance are due to object motion, to observer motion, or to some combination of both. This taking into account of self-motion when the observer is presented with changes in visual information is sometimes called compensation. Compensation for head motion is considered to occur for frontoparallel as well as for sagittal motions of the head (Wallach, 1985(Wallach, , 1987Wallach & Flaherty, 1975;Wallach, Stanton, & Becker, 1974).However, the presence of visual cues of changing sagittal distance between the object and observer, together with additional information regarding the observer's own staThe preparation of this article was supported by Research Grant MH39457 from the United States National Institute of Mental...

show abstract

Section: Perception Of Sagittal Motion 93contrasting

confidence: 53%

Determinants ofthe perception of sagittal motion

Gogel

Tietz

1992

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some writers attribute the traditional difficulties to the use of only one "perceived size" variable instead oftwo (Baird, 1968(Baird, , 1970Joynson, 1949Joynson, , 1958aJoynson, , 1958bJoynson & Kirk, 1960;McCready, 1965;Ono, 1970;Rock, 1977;Rock & McDermott, 1964). They claim we perceive not only linear size (S) values but also direction difference (V) values.…”

Section: Perceived Visual Anglementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some alternative approaches that use V' rad along with S' m and D' m (Baird, 1968(Baird, , 1970(Baird, , 1982Rock, 1977Rock, , 1983Rock & McDermott, 1964) nevertheless have tended to follow tradition by treating the linear and angular size experiences for a target as mutually exclusive values on the same "perceptual size" dimension: The standard assumption has been that a target's "perceived size" (S' in the SDIH) may be, at one time, a "distal" value that approximately equals S m and, at another time, a "proximal" value that somehow correlates with V deg (see Epstein, 1977aEpstein, , 1977b. To experience one value or the other, an observer supposedly switches between two "attitudes" (Boring, 1952), or two "perceptual modes" (Rock, 1977(Rock, , 1983: The observer's choice of mode is determined by the observer instructions (Baird, 1970;Carlson, 1977) and by the relative abundance of distance cues (because if D' =D, then S' =S).…”

Section: Alternativementioning

confidence: 99%