The role of the familiar-size cue to distance in stereoscopic depth perception was examined in two experiments. In experiment 1 subjects judged the depth of a binocularly viewed interval, the far point of which was defined by either a familiar or an unfamiliar object, and in experiment 2 subjects adjusted the depth of the interval so that its extent appeared equal to the length of a vertical reference extent positioned on the surface of the object. Although familiar size influenced depth estimates (experiment 1) it did not influence matching judgments (experiment 2). The findings are discussed with reference to the issue of the nature of the familiar-size effects on judgments of stereoscopic depth.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BishopP O, 1989“Vertical disparity, egocentric distance and stereoscopic depth constancy: A new interpretation”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B237445–469
2.
CarlsonV R, 1977“Instructions and perceptual constancy judgments” in Stability and Constancy in Visual Perception: Mechanisms and Processes Ed. EpsteinW (New York: John Wiley) pp 217–254
3.
CormackR H, 1984“Stereoscopic depth perception at far viewing distances”Perception & Psychophysics35423–428
4.
CummingBJohnstonEParkerA, 1991“Vertical disparities and perception of three-dimensional shape”Nature (London)349411–413
5.
FoleyJ M, 1967“Disparity increase with convergence for constant perceptual criteria”Perception & Psychophysics2605–608
6.
GogelW C, 1960“Perceived frontal size as a determiner of perceived binocular depth”Journal of Psychology50119–131
7.
GogelW C, 1969“The effect of object familiarity on the perception of size and distance”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology21239–247
8.
GogelW C, 1976“An indirect method of measuring perceived distance from familiar size”Perception & Psychophysics20419–429
9.
GogelW CDa SilvaJ A, 1987“Familiar size and the theory of off-size perceptions”Perception & Psychophysics41318–328
10.
GogelW CNewtonR E, 1969“Perception of off-sized objects”Perception & Psychophysics57–9
11.
JuleszB, 1971Foundations of Cyclopean Perception (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press)
12.
May hewJ E WLonguet-HigginsH C, 1982“A computational model of binocular depth perception”Nature (London)297276–377
13.
O'LearyAWallachH, 1980“Familiar size and linear perspective as distance cues in stereoscopic depth constancy”Perception & Psychophysics27131–135
14.
OnoHComerfordJ, 1977“Stereoscopic depth constancy” in Stability and Constancy in Visual Perception Ed. EpsteinW (New York: John Wiley) pp 91–128
15.
PredebonJ, 1992a“The influence of object familiarity on magnitude estimates of apparent size”Perception2177–90
16.
PredebonJ, 1992b“The role of instructions and familiar size in absolute judgments of size and distance”Perception & Psychophysics51344–354
17.
RivestJOnoHSaidaS, 1989“The roles of convergence and apparent distance in depth constancy with motion parallax”Perception & Psychophysics46401–408
18.
WallachHGillamBCardilloL, 1979“Some consequences of stereoscopic depth constancy”Perception & Psychophysics26235–240
19.
WallachHZuckermanC, 1963“The constancy of stereoscopic depth”American Journal of Psychology76404–412
