The independence of size perception and distance perception

Research on distance perception has focused on environmental sources of information, which have been well documented; in contrast, size perception research has focused on familiarity or has relied on distance information. An analysis of these two parallel bodies of work reveals their lack of equivalence. Furthermore, definitions of familiarity need environmental grounding, specifically concerning the amount of size variation among different tokens of an object. To demonstrate the independence of size and distance perception, subjects in two experiments were asked to estimate the sizes of common objects from memory and then to estimate both the sizes and the distances of a subset of such objects displayed in front of them. The experiments found that token variation was a critical variable in the accuracy of size estimations, whether from memory or with vision, and that distance had no impact at all on size perception. Furthermore, when distance information was good, size had no effect on distance estimation; in contrast, at far distances, the distances to token variable or unknown objects were estimated with less accuracy. The results suggest that size perception has been misconceptualized, so that the relevant research to understand its properties has not been undertaken. The size-distance invariance hypothesis was shown to be inadequate for both areas of research.

[1]  Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.  Human and machine vision II , 1986 .

[2]  B. Gillam Illusions at century's end. , 1998 .

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

[4]  R C BOLLES,et al.  Importance of object recognition in size constancy. , 1956, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

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

[7]  W. Epstein The known-size-apparent-distance hypothesis. , 1961, The American journal of psychology.

[8]  M. Hershenson,et al.  Size-distance invariance: Kinetic invariance is different from static invariance , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[10]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  Visual angle as a determinant of perceived interobject distance , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  Tadasu Oyama,et al.  Visual Space Perception , 1962 .

[12]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  Toward a theory of the perceived spatial layout of scenes , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[13]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  Stimulus Information and Processing Mechanisms in Visual Space Perception , 1983 .

[14]  R. Toye,et al.  The effect of viewing position on the perceived layout of space , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  Julian Hochberg,et al.  Perception and cognition at century's end , 1998 .

[16]  Ralph N. Haber,et al.  Why mobile robots need a spatial memory , 1991, Other Conferences.

[17]  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 .

[18]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Chapter 4 – Information from the World around Us , 1998 .

[19]  W. Epstein Stability and constancy in visual perception : mechanisms and processes , 1977 .

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