An experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of perspective cue and binocular disparity on perceived angular and linear size. Following the ‘angular’ and ‘linear’ instructions, subjects matched the size of two squares, for which the binocular disparity between the centers of the squares and the configuration of the stimulus surrounding the squares were manipulated. Results showed that angular-size matches depended on the retinal-image size and the binocular disparity, and not on the visual-surround stimulus. Linear-size matches, on the other hand, depended on the visual-surround stimulus as well as on the image size and the binocular disparity. The visual-surround stimulus also affects the perceived depth between the test squares. These findings indicate that perceived angular and linear size depend on different processes that use different cues, and suggest that there is a causal relationship between perceived depth and perceived linear size.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArendL EGoldsteinR, 1987“Simultaneous constancy, lightness, and brightness”Journal of the Optical Society of America A42281–2285
2.
BiersdorfW ROhwakiSKozilD J, 1963“The effect of instructions and oculomotor adjustments on apparent size”American Journal of Psychology761–17
3.
BlessingW WLandauerA AColtheartM, 1967“The effect of false perspective cues on distance- and size-judgment: An examination of the invariance hypothesis”American Journal of Psychology80250–256
4.
CarlsonV R, 1977“Instruction and perceptual constancy judgments”, in Stability and Constancy in Visual Perception: Mechanisms and Processes Ed. EpsteinW, (New York: John Wiley) pp 217–254
5.
DeesJ W, 1966“Moon illusion and size-distance invariance: An explanation based upon an experimental artifact”Perceptual and Motor Skills23629–630
6.
EnrightJ T, 1987“Art and the oculomotor system: Perspective illustrations evoke vergence changes”Perception16731–746
7.
EnrightJ T, 1989a“The eye, the brain and the size of the moon: Towards a unified oculomotor hypothesis for the moon illusion”, in The Moon Illusion Ed. HershensonM, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 59–121
8.
EnrightJ T, 1989b“Manipulating stereopsis and vergence in an outdoor setting: Moon, sky and horizon”Vision Research291815–1824
9.
EpsteinWParkJCaseyA, 1961“The current status of the size–distance hypotheses”Psychological Bulletin58491–514
10.
EvansR M, 1974The Perception of Color (New York: John Wiley)
11.
GilinskyA S, 1955“The effect of attitude upon the perception of size”American Journal of Psychology68173–192
12.
GogelW CDa SilvaJ A, 1987“A two-process theory of the response to size and distance”Perception & Psychophysics41220–238
13.
HershensonM, 1989“That most puzzling illusion”, in The Moon Illusion Ed. HershensonM, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 1–3
14.
HigashiyamaA, 1979“The perception of size and distance under monocular observation”Perception & Psychophysics35305–312
15.
JoynsonR B, 1949“The problems of size and distance”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology1119–135
16.
KanekoHUchikawaK, 1992“Two kinds of perceived size as a function of binocular disparity”Japanese Journal of Optics21294–302
17.
KanekoHUchikawaK, 1993“Apparent relative size and depth of moving objects”Perception22537–547
18.
KanekoHUchikawaKIkedaM, 1991“Comparison between distance and size perceived with convergence”Japanese Journal of Optics20285–293
KingW LGruberH E, 1962“Moon illusion and Emmert's law”Science1351125–1126
22.
KomodaMOnoH, 1974“Oculomotor adjustments and size – distance perception”Perception & Psychophysics15353–360
23.
LeibowitzH WMooreD, 1966“Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size”Journal of the Optical Society of America561120–1123
24.
LeibowitzH WShiinaKHennessyR T, 1972“Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy”Perception & Psychophysics12497–500
25.
McCreadyD, 1965“Size–distance perception and accommodation–convergence micropsia—A critique”Vision Research5189–206
26.
McCreadyD, 1985“On size, distance, and visual angle perception”Perception & Psychophysics37323–334
McKeeS PWelchL, 1992“The precision of size constancy”Vision Research321447–1460
29.
OnoH, 1970“Some thoughts on different perceptual tasks related to size and distance”Psychonomic Monograph Supplement3143–151
30.
OnoHMuterPMitsonL, 1974“Size – distance paradox with accommodative micropsia”Perception & Psychophysics15301–307
31.
OyamaT, 1974“Perceived size and perceived distance in stereoscopic vision and an analysis of their causal relations”Perception & Psychophysics16175–181
32.
OyamaT, 1977“Feature analyzers, optical illusions and figurai aftereffects”Perception6401–406
33.
PlugCRossH E, 1994“The natural moon illusion: A multifactor angular account”Perception23321–333
