Size scaling: Retinal or environmental frame of reference?

Previous studies have reported that when subjects are presented with two forms in a same-different task, their reaction times increase with the size ratio. This suggests a “mental scaling” transformation analogous to the “mental rotation” used to compensate for differently oriented forms in similar tasks. However, since the stimuli were presented in isolation, retinal and environmental size ratios were confounded. The present study varied both retinal and environmental size ratios in a same-different simultaneous matching task. In one experiment, random forms were placed at different distances along a textured hallway. A second experiment varied the monocular size information: In one condition the forms were displayed in a textured hallway; a second condition added cast shadows; and a third condition displayed the forms against a frontal wall of indeterminate distance. The results suggest that environmental size is determined prior to mental scaling and form matching.

[1]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The importance of shape in early lexical learning , 1988 .

[2]  Thomas Ertl,et al.  Computer Graphics - Principles and Practice, 3rd Edition , 2014 .

[3]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Varieties of Object Constancy , 1989, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[4]  C. Bundesen,et al.  Size scaling in visual pattern recognition. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  P. Jolicoeur.  A size-congruency effect in memory for visual shape , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[6]  Steven K. Feiner,et al.  Computer graphics: principles and practice (2nd ed.) , 1990 .

[7]  Victor A. F. Lamme,et al.  Contextual Modulation in Primary Visual Cortex , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  W. Peddie.  Phenomenal Regression to the Real Object , 1933, Nature.

[9]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The Representation of Location in Visual Images , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[11]  M I Posner,et al.  Chronometric analysis of classification. , 1967, Psychological review.

[12]  A Yonas,et al.  Development of Sensitivity to Information Provided by Cast Shadows in Pictures , 1978, Perception.

[13]  C. A. Burbeck,et al.  Locus of spatial-frequency discrimination. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[14]  P Jolicoeur,et al.  Size effects in visual recognition memory are determined by perceived size , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Jon Driver,et al.  Visual search for a conjunction of movement and form is parallel , 1988, Nature.

[16]  S. Kosslyn.  Image and mind , 1982 .

[17]  P Jolicoeur,et al.  Additivity and interaction between size ratio and response category in the comparison of size-discrepant shapes. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  R. Finke,et al.  Principles of mental imagery , 1989 .

[19]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Preattentive recovery of three-dimensional orientation from line drawings. , 1991, Psychological review.

[20]  M. Wraga.  Using eye height in different postures to scale the heights of objects. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  Barbara Gillam,et al.  The Perception of Spatial Layout from Static Optical Information , 1995 .

[22]  D L Schacter,et al.  Priming and recognition of transformed three-dimensional objects: effects of size and reflection. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  A. Hartley.  Mental measurement in the magnitude estimation of length. , 1977 .

[24]  Deborah J. Aks,et al.  Visual search for size is influenced by a background texture gradient. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  I. Rock,et al.  GROUPING BASED ON PHENOMENAL PROXIMITY. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[26]  I. Biederman,et al.  Size invariance in visual object priming , 1992 .

[27]  W. Warren,et al.  Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  W. Epstein,et al.  The time it takes to make veridical size and distance judgments , 1973 .

[29]  Refractor.  Vision , 2000, The Lancet.

[30]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[31]  D Kersten,et al.  Moving Cast Shadows Induce Apparent Motion in Depth , 1997, Perception.

[32]  R. Luce,et al.  Effects of stimulus complexity on mental rotation rate of polygons. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Preemption effects in visual search: evidence for low-level grouping. , 1995, Psychological review.

[34]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  On the Logic of Perception , 1969 .

[35]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex , 1962, The Journal of physiology.

[36]  John Uhlarik,et al.  Size scaling in two-dimensional pictorial arrays , 1980 .

[37]  S. Kerst,et al.  Directional effects of size change on the comparison of visual shapes. , 1978, The American journal of psychology.

[38]  V S Ramachandran,et al.  Perceiving shape from shading. , 1988, Scientific American.

[39]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Chapter 3 – Perceiving Layout and Knowing Distances: The Integration, Relative Potency, and Contextual Use of Different Information about Depth* , 1995 .

[40]  O. Sabouraud.  [Space perception]. , 1978, Revue d'oto-neuro-ophtalmologie.

[41]  D. Besner.  Visual Pattern Recognition: Size Preprocessing Re-Examined , 1983, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[42]  T. Wiesel,et al.  The influence of contextual stimuli on the orientation selectivity of cells in primary visual cortex of the cat , 1990, Vision Research.

[43]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions , 1986, Nature.

[44]  T. Wiesel,et al.  Receptive field dynamics in adult primary visual cortex , 1992, Nature.

[45]  Deborah J. Aks,et al.  Visual search for direction of shading is influenced by apparent depth , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[46]  Hans Wallach,et al.  Slope of regard as a distance cue , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  I Rock,et al.  Is a Perceived Shape Based on its Retinal Image? , 1993, Perception.

[48]  M. Pettet,et al.  Dynamic changes in receptive-field size in cat primary visual cortex. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  Victor A. F. Lamme.  The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[50]  V. S. Ramachandran,et al.  Perception of shape from shading , 1988, Nature.

[51]  大野 義夫,et al.  Computer Graphics : Principles and Practice, 2nd edition, J.D. Foley, A.van Dam, S.K. Feiner, J.F. Hughes, Addison-Wesley, 1990 , 1991 .

[52]  W C Gogel,et al.  A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[53]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Surfaces versus features in visual search , 1992, Nature.

[54]  L. S. Mark,et al.  Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: a study of sitting and stair climbing. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[55]  W. Epstein,et al.  Attitude of judgment and reaction time in estimation of size at a distance , 1975 .

[56]  D. V. van Essen,et al.  Neuronal responses to static texture patterns in area V1 of the alert macaque monkey. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[57]  Leslie Welch,et al.  The precision of size constancy , 1992, Vision Research.

[58]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Speed of size scaling in human vision , 1972 .

[59]  S. Kosslyn.  Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: a computational approach. , 1987, Psychological review.

[60]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Varieties of size-specific visual selection. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[61]  S. Palmer.  Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[62]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Egocentric Spaw Representation in Early Vision , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[63]  C. Bundesen,et al.  Visual transformation of size. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[64]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Sensitivity To Three-Dimensional Orientation in Visual Search , 1990 .

[65]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Egocentric Spatial Representation in Early Vision , 1993 .

[66]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[67]  K. A. Stevens.  The information content of texture gradients , 1981, Biological Cybernetics.

[68]  M. Wraga,et al.  The role of eye height in perceiving affordances and object dimensions , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[69]  B. Farell,et al.  Same-different judgments: a review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[70]  R. Hetherington.  The Perception of the Visual World , 1952 .

[71]  Margaret A. Hagen,et al.  The Perception of Pictures , 1982 .

[72]  A. Larsen,et al.  Pattern matching: Effects of size ratio, angular difference in orientation, and familiarity , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[73]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Components of high-level vision: A cognitive neuroscience analysis and accounts of neurological syndromes , 1990, Cognition.