The Effect of Familiar Size at Familiar Distances

The effect of familiar size as a distance cue was tested with familiar objects at familiar distances. Experiment 1 showed that there were no uncontrolled distance cues available and that in their absence the retinal image did not affect depth or size perception. Under these conditions, size and distance judgments were essentially indeterminate and independent of each other. In experiment 2 a paradigm was employed which allowed a direct determination of whether equivalent changes either in size of a familiar object or in its true distance produced equivalent changes in its perceived distance. The results showed that there were no uncontrolled distance cues, and that subjects perceived the familiar object as having its familiar size. Moreover, changing the retinal image of the objects had almost exactly the same effect on their perceived distance as did changing their true distance. Hence, familiar size does effectively govern the perception of distance when there are no competing cues.

[1]  A. H. Hastorf,et al.  The influence of suggestion on the relationship between stimulus size and perceived distance. , 1950, The Journal of psychology.

[2]  W C Gogel The absolute and relative size cues to distance. , 1969, The American journal of psychology.

[3]  W. Mcdermott Size perception in the presence of individual cues for distance. , 1969, The Journal of general psychology.

[4]  W. H. Ittelson Size as a cue to distance. , 1952 .

[5]  W. Epstein,et al.  NONRELATIONAL JUDGEMENT OF SIZE AND DISTANCE. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[6]  The constancies in perceptual theory. , 1951 .

[7]  H W Mertens,et al.  Perceived Size and Distance of Familiar Objects , 1967, Perceptual and motor skills.

[8]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency , 1973 .

[9]  W. Mcdermott Linear perspective and perceived size , 1969 .

[10]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  An indirect method of measuring perceived distance from familiar size , 1976 .

[11]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  Perception of off-sized objects1 , 1969 .

[12]  J. Baird Retinal and assumed size cues as determinants of size and distance perception. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  W C Gogel,et al.  The Effect of Object Familiarity on the Perception of Size and Distance , 1969, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  The retinal size of a familiar object as a determiner of apparent distance. , 1957 .

[15]  W. Gogel,et al.  SIZE CUE TO VISUALLY PERCEIVED DISTANCE. , 1964, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  W. H. Ittelson Size as a cue to distance: static localization. , 1951, The American journal of psychology.

[17]  Baird Jc Retinal and assumed size cues as determinants of size and distance perception. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  W. H. Ittelson,et al.  The constancies in perceptual theory. , 1951, Psychological review.