Toward a theory of frontal-size judgments

A quantitative description offrontal-size judgments is presented in three models. The models are similarin that each is based upon the power function between theoretical and judgment ratios. Within broad limits, the exponent of the function indicates the specific experimental conditions. The Null model describes judgments when stimulus cues are totally reduced, and the visual angles of targets are matched. The Ratio model describes judgments of different target sizes that are all presented at a constant distance. The Distance model describes judgments of targets located at different distances. The common structures of these three models have implications for a theory of frontal-size judgments.

[1]  T. Künnapas,et al.  Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. , 1955 .

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

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

[4]  Gösta Ekman,et al.  PSYCHOPHYSICAL RELATIONS IN VISUAL PERCEPTION OF LENGTH, AREA AND VOLUME , 1961 .

[5]  M. Teghtsoonian.  THE JUDGMENT OF SIZE. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[6]  Gösta Ekman,et al.  A Psychophysical Study of Cartographic Symbols , 1961 .

[7]  Takehiro Ueno.  THE SIZE-DISTANCE INVARIANCE HYPOTHESIS AND THE PSYCHOPHYSICAL LAW , 1962 .

[8]  John C. Baird,et al.  Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments , 1967 .

[9]  W. Epstein.  The Influence of Assumed Size on Apparent Distance , 1963 .

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

[11]  V. R. Carlson,et al.  Independent size judgments at different distances. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  J. Baird.  Size of Retinal Image as a Perceptual Cue , 1964, Perceptual and motor skills.

[13]  S. S. Stevens.  The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes-loudness. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[14]  W. Lichten,et al.  A new technique for the study of perceived size. , 1950, The American journal of psychology.

[15]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Subjective scaling of length and area and the matching of length to loudness and brightness. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  J. Baird.  Area and distance estimation of single and multiple stimuli. , 1965, Vision research.

[17]  I. Rock,et al.  The relational determination of perceived size. , 1959, Psychological review.

[18]  R OVER.  The effect of instructions on size-judgments under reduction-conditions. , 1960, The American journal of psychology.

[19]  A. S. Gilinsky,et al.  The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. , 1955, The American journal of psychology.

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

[21]  AN INVESTIGATION OF VARIABLES IN JUDGMENTS OF RELATIVE AREA. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  T. Engen,et al.  Effect of reference number on magnitude estimation , 1966 .

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

[24]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  J. Baird.  Stimulus and Response Factors in Size Instruction Effects , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[26]  Gordon F. Pitz,et al.  Magnitude scales of line lengths , 1965 .

[27]  Carlson Vr,et al.  Size-constancy judgments and perceptual compromise. , 1962 .

[28]  W C GOGEL,et al.  VISUAL PERCEPTION OF SPATIAL EXTENT. , 1963, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[29]  Apparent Size with and without Distance Cues , 1952 .