The size-distance paradox is a cognitive phenomenon

Abstract The perceived size of a fixated object is known to be a function of the perceived fixation distance. The size-distance paradox has been posited as evidence that the perceived distance of a fixated object is, in turn, influenced by the object’s perceived size. If this is correct then it challenges a widely accepted account (modified weak fusion) of how the nervous system combines multiple sources of information. We hypothesised that the influence of perceived size on the perception of distance is likely to be restricted to conscious perceptual judgements. If our hypothesis is correct then the size-distance paradox should not be observed when observers make action-based distance judgements. In line with this expectation we observed the size-distance paradox when participants made verbal reports on target distance but found no paradoxical judgements in a group who were asked to point at the target. We therefore suggest that the size-distance paradox should not be taken as evidence that perceived size feeds back into distance perception.

[1]  Harold Alfred Swenson,et al.  The Relative Influence of Accommodation and Convergence in the Judgment of Distance , 1932 .

[2]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[3]  Jacob Nachmias,et al.  The Effect of Oculomotor Adjustments on Apparent Size , 1959 .

[4]  W. Epstein,et al.  The current status of the size-distance hypotheses. , 1961, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  D. McCready,et al.  Size-distance perception and accommodation-convergence micropsia--a critique. , 1965, Vision research.

[6]  W C Gogel,et al.  Directional separation and the size cue to distance , 1971, Psychologische Forschung.

[7]  W C Gogel,et al.  Scalar perceptions with binocular cues of distance. , 1972, The American journal of psychology.

[8]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  Size-distance paradox with accommodative micropsia , 1974 .

[9]  C. Hofsten,et al.  The role of convergence in visual space perception , 1976, Vision Research.

[10]  Atsuki Higashiyama,et al.  Perceived size and distance as a perceptual conflict between two processing modes , 1977 .

[11]  W. Gogel,et al.  SIZE, DISTANCE, AND DEPTH PERCEPTION**The preparation of this chapter was supported by PHS Research Grant No. MH-15651 from the National Institute of Mental Health. , 1978 .

[12]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Relation between cognitive and motor-oriented systems of visual position perception. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Atsuki Higashiyama,et al.  The perception of size and distance under monocular observation , 1979 .

[14]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Relation between cognitive and motor-oriented systems of visual position perception. , 1979 .

[15]  D. A. Owens,et al.  Accommodation, convergence, and distance perception in low illumination. , 1980, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[16]  J. M. Foley.  Binocular distance perception. , 1980, Psychological review.

[17]  M. Turvey,et al.  Visually perceiving distance: a comment on Shebilske, Karmiohl, and Proffitt (1983). , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  L. Jakobson,et al.  A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them , 1991, Nature.

[19]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[20]  M. Landy,et al.  Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion , 1995, Vision Research.

[21]  James R. Tresilian,et al.  Looking at the task in hand: vergence eye movements and perceived size , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  G P Bingham,et al.  The necessity of a perception-action approach to definite distance perception: monocular distance perception to guide reaching. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  A. Milner,et al.  Perception and Action in Depth , 1998, Consciousness and Cognition.

[24]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  Some Recent Studies on the Extraretinal Contribution to Distance Perception , 1999, Perception.

[25]  Z. Pylyshyn.  Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. , 1999, The Behavioral and brain sciences.