Size-distance paradox with accommodative micropsia

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that the paradoxical relative distance judgment associated with the size-distance paradox is due to the visual system’s assuming equal linear size and perceiving a smaller angular size for the closer stimulus equal in visual angle. In Experiment I, two different sized coins were presented successively, and 16 Ss were asked to give ordinal judgments of apparent distance and apparent size. When the two coins depicted the same figures, the closer stimulus was judged to be farther and smaller, more frequently, than when two coins depicted different figures. In Experiment II, 48 Ss were asked to give ratio judgments of apparent distance, apparent linear size, and apparent angular size for two stimuli which were presented successively. When the stimuli were of equal shape, the mean ratios of the far stimulus to the near stimulus were smaller for the apparent distance but larger for the apparent linear size and angular size than when the stimuli were of different shape. The obtained distance judgments were consistent with the hypothesis but the obtained judgments of linear size and angular size were not.

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

[2]  Robert E. Bannon,et al.  SPATIAL SENSE AND MOVEMENTS OF THE EYE , 1948 .

[3]  V. R. Carlson.  Underestimation in Size-Constancy Judgments , 1960 .

[4]  W. R. Biersdorf,et al.  The effect of instructions and oculomotor adjustments on apparent size. , 1963, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  M W Morgan,et al.  Accommodation and vergence. , 1968, American journal of optometry and archives of American Academy of Optometry.

[6]  J M Foley,et al.  The size-distance relation and intrinsic geometry of visual space: implications for processing. , 1972, Vision research.

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

[8]  W. H. Ittelson.  Visual space perception , 1961 .

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

[10]  W. H. Ittelson,et al.  The size-distance invariance hypothesis. , 1953, Psychological review.

[11]  John C. Baird,et al.  Psychophysical analysis of visual space , 1974 .

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

[13]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception , 1974 .

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

[15]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  A comparison of accommodative and fusional convergence as cues to distance , 1972 .

[16]  H. Leibowitz,et al.  Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size. , 1966, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[17]  W. Gogel,et al.  The organization of perceived space , 1973, Psychologische Forschung.

[18]  Robert T. Hennessy,et al.  Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy , 1972 .

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

[20]  W. Epstein.  Attitudes of judgment and the size-distance invariance hypothesis. , 1963 .

[21]  R. Held.  Dissociation of visual functions by deprivation and rearrangement , 1968 .

[22]  C. O. Roelofs,et al.  Considerations on the visual egocentre , 1959 .