Apparent Size and Distance in an Imaging Display

The size-distance invariance hypothesis suggests that the perceived size and the perceived distance of objects in a field viewed naturally are closely related. However, this relationship breaks down when scenes are viewed through high-power optical systems. When natural scenes are viewed through an imaging display of unity magnification, there is a reduction in their apparent size. This raises the question of whether the relationship breaks down when scenes are viewed through a low-power imaging display. A single-lens reflex camera was used as an imaging display that enabled subjects to vary the size of imaged real-world scenes. Judgments of size were found to vary with depth information in scenes and between monocular and binocular viewing, consistent with a previous finding, but judgments of distance did not vary significantly across either of these conditions. The results suggest that judgments of size and judgments of distance with imaging displays are not influenced uniformly by environmental and task variables.

[1]  A. Hartman,et al.  EFFECT OF REDUCTION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPARENT SIZE AND DISTANCE. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  Stanley N. Roscoe,et al.  Bigness Is in the Eye of the Beholder , 1985, Human factors.

[3]  H. Gruber.  The relation of perceived size to perceived distance. , 1954, The American journal of psychology.

[4]  S N Roscoe.  Judgments of Size and Distance with Imaging Displays , 1984, Human factors.

[5]  A. D. Fisk,et al.  The Role of Situational Context in the Development of High-Performance Skills , 1988, Human factors.

[6]  G S HARKER,et al.  A TEST OF THE INVARIANCE OF THE RATIO OF PERCEIVED SIZE TO PERCEIVED DISTANCE. , 1963, The American journal of psychology.

[7]  Alfred H. Holway,et al.  Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant , 1941 .

[8]  L. Kaufman,et al.  The moon illusion. , 1962, Scientific American.

[9]  A. Higashiyama,et al.  The perception of vertical and horizontal distances in outdoor settings , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Thomas J Triggs,et al.  Magnification Effects with Imaging Displays Depend on Scene Content and Viewing Condition , 1988 .

[11]  S N Roscoe,et al.  The moon illusion revisited. , 1983, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[12]  A. S. Gilinsky.  Perceived size and distance in visual space. , 1951, Psychological review.

[13]  R N Haber,et al.  Why Low-Flying Fighter Planes Crash: Perceptual and Attentional Factors in Collisions with the Ground , 1987, Human factors.

[14]  T. Künnapas,et al.  SCALES FOR SUBJECTIVE DISTANCE , 1960 .

[15]  H W Leibowitz,et al.  Anomalous myopias and the intermediate dark focus of accommodation. , 1975, Science.

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

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

[18]  S N Roscoe,et al.  Flight By Periscope: Making Takeoffs and Landings; The Influence of Image Magnification, Practice, and Various Conditions of Flight1 , 1966, Human factors.

[19]  S. N. Roscoe.  When Day Is Done and Shadows Fall, We Miss the Airport Most of All , 1979 .

[20]  R. Thouless,et al.  Apparent size and distance in vision through a magnifying system. , 1968, British journal of psychology.

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

[22]  S. Freguia.  Researches in Binocular Vision. , 1950 .