A hypothesis derived from J. J. Gibson's psychophysical theory of space perception was tested. Subjects made monocular relative distance judgements by moving a marker to the apparent physical mid-point between two other fixed markers which were placed on a surface along the subjects' line of sight. Judgements were significantly influenced by the texture density gradients of stimulation derived from the surface over which they were made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Denis-PrinzhornM. (1960). Perception des distance et constance des grandeurs (étude génétique). Archives de Psychologie37, 181–309.
2.
EpsteinW.ParkJ. (1964). Examination of Gibson's Psychophysical Hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin62, 180–96.
3.
GibsonE. J.BergmanR.PurdyJ. (1955). The effect of prior training with a scale of distance on absolute and relative judgements of distance over ground. Journal of Experimental Psychology50, 97–105.
4.
GibsonJ. J. (1947). Motion picture testing and research. A.A.F. Aviation Psychology Research Report No. 7.
5.
GibsonJ. J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual WorldBoston: Houghton Mifflin.
6.
GibsonJ. J. (1954). A theory of pictorial perception. Audio Visual Communications Review2, 3–23.
7.
GibsonJ. J. (1959). Perception as a function of stimulation. Psychology, a Study of a ScienceKochS.New York: McGraw-Hill Vol. 1.
8.
GibsonJ. J. (1961). Ecological optics. Vision Research1, 253–62.
9.
GruberH. E. (1954). The relation of perceived size to perceived distance. American Journal of Psychology67, 411–26.
10.
HochbergJ. E. (1962). The psychophysics of pictorial perception. Audio Visual Communications Review10, 22–54.
11.
NewmanC. V. (1969). Children's size judgments in a picture with suggested depth. Nature, London223, 418–20.
12.
PurdyJ.GibsonE. J. (1955). Distance judgments by the method of fractionation. Journal of Experimental Psychology50, 374–80.
13.
SmithO. W. (1958). Judgments of size and distance in photographs. American Journal of Psychology71, 529–38.
14.
SonodaG. (1961). Perceptual constancies observed in plane pictures. Experimental researches on the Structure of the Perceptual SpaceAkishigeY. Bulletin No. 7. Fukuoka, Japan: The Faculty of Literature of Kyushu University199–228.
15.
WeinsteinS. (1950). An analysis of the effects of texture-gradient, position in the field and apparent size, on the perception of depthUniversity of New York Unpublished M.A. thesis.
16.
WeinsteinS. (1957). The perception of depth in the absence of texture-gradient. American Journal of Psychology70, 611–5.
17.
WhitehouseJ. M.GruberH. E. (1957). The effects of surface texture and binocular disparity on distance-ratio perception Paper read to Colorado Psychological Association, Fort Collins.
18.
WinerB. J. (1962). Statistical Principles in Experimental DesignNew York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
WohlwillJ. F. (1962). The perspective illusion: Perceived size and distance in fields varying in suggested depth, in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology64, 300–10.
20.
WohlwillJ. F. (1963a). The development of “overconstancy” in space perception. Advances in Child Development and BehaviorLipsittL. P.SpikerC. C.New York: Academic Press Vol. 1.
21.
WohlwillJ. F. (1963b). Overconstancy in distance perception as a function of the texture of the stimulus field and other variables. Perceptual Motor Skills17, 831–46.
22.
WohlwillJ. F. (1964). Changes in distance judgments as a function of corrected or non-corrected practice. Perceptual Motor Skills19, 403–13.
23.
WohlwillJ. F. (1965). Texture of the stimulus field and age as variables in the perception of relative distance in photographic slides. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology2, 163–77.
