An experiment was conducted to determine the nature of size perception under reduced cues for distance. A modified method of constant stimuli was used, and Os were required to compare the size of a comparison stimulus presented with distance cues with the size of a standard stimulus presented devoid of distance cues. Under these conditions Os were able to correctly judge the relative image sizes of the two objects.
References
1.
BairdJ. C.Retinal and assumed size cues as determinants of size and distance perception. J. exp. Psychol., 1963, 66, 155–162.
2.
ChalmersE. L.Monocular and binocular cues in the perception of size and distance. Amer. J. Psychol., 1952, 65, 415–423.
3.
GarrettH. E.Statistics in psychology and education. New York: Longmans, Green, 1958.
4.
GibsonJ. J.The visual field and the visual world: A reply to Professor Boring. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 149–151.
5.
GogelW. C.HartmanB. O.HarkerG. S.The retinal size of a familiar object as a determiner of apparent distance. Psychol. Monogr., 1957, 71, No. 13 (Whole No. 442).
6.
HastorfA. H.WayK. S.Apparent size with and without distance cues. J. gen. Psychol., 1952, 47, 181–188.
7.
HolwayA. H.BoringE. G.Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 1941, 54, 21–37.
8.
LichtenW.LurieS.A new technique for the study of perceived size. Amer. J. Psychol., 1950, 63, 281–282.
9.
OverR.The effect of instructions on size-judgments under reduction conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 1960, 73, 599–602.
10.
StevensS. S.The direct estimation of sensory magnitude-loudness. Amer. J. Psychol., 1956, 69, 1–25.
11.
WallachH.McKennaV. V.On size-perception in the absence of cues for distance. Amer. J. Psychol., 1960, 73, 458–460.
12.
WoodworthR. S.SchlosbergH.Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, 1954.
