Canonical Visual Size for Real-world Objects

Real-world objects can be viewed at a range of distances and thus can be experienced at a range of visual angles within the visual field. Given the large amount of visual size variation possible when observing objects, we examined how internal object representations represent visual size information. In a series of experiments which required observers to access existing object knowledge, we observed that real-world objects have a consistent visual size at which they are drawn, imagined, and preferentially viewed. Importantly, this visual size is proportional to the logarithm of the assumed size of the object in the world, and is best characterized not as a fixed visual angle, but by the ratio of the object and the frame of space around it. Akin to the previous literature on canonical perspective, we term this consistent visual size information the canonical visual size.

[1]  L. Carmichael,et al.  An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. , 1932 .

[2]  Maurice Merleau-Ponty Phenomenology of Perception , 1964 .

[3]  W. H. Ittelson Size as a cue to distance: static localization. , 1951, The American journal of psychology.

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

[5]  S. S. Stevens On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

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

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

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

[9]  W. Epstein,et al.  RELATIVE SIZE IN ISOLATION AS A STIMULUS FOR RELATIVE PERCEIVED DISTANCE. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  W. Epstein,et al.  NONRELATIONAL JUDGEMENT OF SIZE AND DISTANCE. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[11]  John W. Senders The Coffee Cup Illusion , 1966 .

[12]  H. Ono,et al.  Apparent distance as a function of familiar size. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  R. Moyer Comparing objects in memory: Evidence suggesting an internal psychophysics , 1973 .

[14]  tephen E. Palmer The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[15]  A. Paivio Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[16]  M. Brigell,et al.  Contextual influences on judgments of linear extent. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[18]  S. Kosslyn Measuring the visual angle of the mind's eye , 1978, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and performance IX , 1982 .

[20]  I. Biederman,et al.  Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Albert Yonas,et al.  Infants' sensitivity to familiar size as information for distance. , 1982 .

[22]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis , 1984 .

[23]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986 .

[25]  J. Baird,et al.  Overflow, first-sight, and vanishing point distances in visual imagery. , 1988, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition.

[26]  S. Ullman Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

[27]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  James T. Walker,et al.  The vista paradox: A natural visual illusion , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  Darren A. Kall,et al.  Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[30]  H. Intraub,et al.  Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  L. Hedges,et al.  Categories and particulars: prototype effects in estimating spatial location. , 1991, Psychological review.

[32]  R. Lesser,et al.  Selective Interference with the Representation of Size in the Human by Direct Cortical Electrical Stimulation , 1992, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  S. Edelman,et al.  Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects , 1992, Vision Research.

[34]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  M. Tarr Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[36]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[37]  M. Goodale Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate , 1995 .

[38]  J. Baird Sensation and Judgment: Complementarity Theory of Psychophysics , 1996 .

[39]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[40]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[41]  M J Tarr,et al.  What Object Attributes Determine Canonical Views? , 1999, Perception.

[42]  Jack L. Vevea,et al.  Why do categories affect stimulus judgment? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[43]  J. Deloache,et al.  Scale Errors Offer Evidence for a Perception-Action Dissociation Early in Life , 2004, Science.

[44]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Modeling the Shape of the Scene: A Holistic Representation of the Spatial Envelope , 2001, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[45]  M. Bar Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[46]  Jodi L. Davenport,et al.  Scene Consistency in Object and Background Perception , 2004, Psychological science.

[47]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Construction of Preference: The Construction of Preference: An Overview , 2006 .

[48]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Constructing Preferences From Memory , 2006 .

[49]  Talia Konkle,et al.  Normative Representation of Objects: Evidence for an Ecological Bias in Object Perception and Memory , 2007 .

[50]  D. McNamara,et al.  Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society , 2007 .

[51]  A. Torralba,et al.  The role of context in object recognition , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[52]  Stephen E Palmer,et al.  Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: effects of position and direction on framing single objects. , 2008, Spatial vision.

[53]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Integrated Contextual Representation for Objects' Identities and Their Locations , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[54]  Pernille Hemmer,et al.  A Bayesian Account of Reconstructive Memory , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[55]  N. Stanietsky,et al.  The interaction of TIGIT with PVR and PVRL2 inhibits human NK cell cytotoxicity , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[56]  Stephen E. Palmer,et al.  Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience. , 2011 .

[57]  Karen B. Schloss,et al.  Hidden Knowledge in Aesthetic JudgmentsPreferences for color and spatial composition , 2011 .