The size-distance relation and intrinsic geometry of visual space: implications for processing.

Abstract When a perceived frontal size is matched to a perceived egocentric distance with only primary cues available, the corresponding physical size-distance ratio is about 0.5. Perceived visual angle exceeds physical angle by much less. It follows that under these conditions the visual space is not Euclidean. This phenomenon is demonstrated in two experiments. It may be the basic phenomenon responsible for the non-Euclidean character of visual space. It is, however, inconsistent with the assumption of homogeneity of the Luneburg-Blank theory. When additional cues to distance are introduced, the physical ratio is set much closer to the perceived ratio with no corresponding change in the perceived magnitude of visual angles. The results are interpreted as disconfirming the hypothesis that perceived size is inferred from visual angle and perceived distance. Rather they suggest two independent modes of spatial information processing.

[1]  William Epstein,et al.  Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size? , 1969 .

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

[3]  Tarow Indow,et al.  Multidimensional mapping of visual space with real and simulated stars , 1968 .

[4]  Koch Sigmund Ed,et al.  Psychology: A Study of A Science , 1962 .

[5]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  The validity of the size-distance invariance hypothesis with cue reduction , 1971 .

[6]  A A BLANK,et al.  Axiomatics of binocular vision; the foundations of metric geometry in relation to space perception. , 1958, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[7]  Paul M. Laporte,et al.  Mathematical Analysis of Binocular Vision , 1950 .

[8]  J. M. Foley.  Depth, size and distance in stereoscopic vision , 1968 .

[9]  William Epstein,et al.  Size and distance judgments under reduced conditions of viewing , 1969 .

[10]  A. A. Blank.  Curvature of Binocular Visual Space. An Experiment , 1961 .

[11]  A A BLANK,et al.  Analysis of experiments in binocular space perception. , 1958, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[12]  Irvin Rock,et al.  The perception of visual angle , 1964 .

[13]  Joseph L. Zinnes,et al.  Theory and Methods of Scaling. , 1958 .

[14]  H WALLACH,et al.  On size-perception in the absence of cues for distance. , 1960, The American journal of psychology.

[15]  Changes in perceived size of angle as a function or orientation in the frontal plane. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  Yasuo Nishikawa.  EUCLIDEAN INTERPRETATION OF BINOCULAR VISUAL SPACE , 1967 .

[17]  Tarow Indow,et al.  Two Interpretations of Binocular Visual Space: Hyperbolic and Euclidean , 1967 .

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

[19]  W. Richards.  THE INFLUENCE OF OCULOMOTOR SYSTEMS ON VISUAL PERCEPTION. , 1968 .

[20]  A A BLANK,et al.  The Luneburg theory of binocular visual space. , 1953, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[21]  John M. Foley,et al.  Desarguesian Property in Visual Space , 1964 .

[22]  Rudolf K. Luneburg,et al.  Metric of binocular visual space , 1950 .

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Foundations of multidimensional scaling. , 1968, Psychological review.

[24]  Paul Boeder,et al.  THE GEOMETRY OF BINOCULAR SPACE PERCEPTION , 1954 .

[25]  H. Wolfe.  Introduction to Non-Euclidean Geometry , 1946 .

[26]  W C Gogel,et al.  The sensing of retinal size. , 1969, Vision research.