The application of computer-animated imagery analogous to a contact view from an air-plane calls for a better understanding of the essential visual cues for spatial orientation. Such systems have application both as contact analog flight displays and as outside visual scenes for flight simulators. In either case, systematic errors in distance judgments are encountered that can be compensated for by magnifying objects in the animated scenes. Results of an experimental investigation of biased distance judgments with a projection periscope accounted for, but did not explain, a portion of the systematic error. The findings are discussed in relation to other unexplained experimental facts associated with size and distance judgments, including various optical illusions and the “projection” of afterimages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnulf, A., Santamaria, J., and Bescos, J. (1981). A cinematographic method for the dynamic study of the image formation by the eye. Microfluctuations of the accommodation. Journal of Optics (Paris), 12(2), 123–128.
2.
Benel, R. A. (1979). Visual accommodation, the Mandelbaum effect, and apparent size (Tech. Report BEL-79-1/AFOSR-79-5). Las Cruces, NM: Ncw Mexico State University, Behavioral Engineering Laboratory.
3.
Blumenfeld, W. (1913). Untersuchungen über die scheinbare Grosse im Schraume. Zeitschrift für Psychologic, 65, 241–404.
4.
Boring, E. G. (1942). Sensation and perception in the hiswry of experimental psychology (pp. 288–299). New York: Appleton-Century.
5.
Boring, E. G. (1943). The moon illusion. American Journal of Physics, 11, 55–60.
6.
Campbell, C. J., McEachern, L. J., and Marg, E. (1955). Flight by periscope (WADC TR 55-142). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: USAF Wright Air Development Center.
7.
Cornsweet, T. N., and Crane, H. D. (1970). Servo-controlled infrared optometer. Joumal of the Optical Society of America, 60, 548–554.
8.
Duke-Elder, W. S. (1939). Textbook of ophthalmology. St. Louis: Mosby.
9.
Emsley, H. H. (1963). Visual optics: Volume 1. Optics of vision (pp. 343–348). Aldwych, England: Hatton Press.
10.
Epstein, W., Park, J., and Casey, A. (1961). The current status of the size-distance hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 58, 491–514.
11.
Gardner, G. T., and Weintraub, D. J. (1968) Tracking afterimage shrinkage during fading. Perception and Psychophysics, 3, 361–363.
12.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception (pp. 7–32). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
13.
Hennessy, R. T., and Leibowitz, H. W. (1971). The effect of a peripheral stimulus on accommodation. Perception and Psychophysics, 10, 129–132.
14.
Hennessy, R, T., Iida, T., Shiina, K., and Leibowitz, H. W. (1975). The effect of pupil size on accommodation. Vision Research, 15, 1–3.
15.
Hillebrand, F. (1902). Theorie der scheinbaren Grosse bei binocularem Sehen. Denksch. Wiss. Wien. (math. nat. KI.), 72, 255–307.
16.
Hochberg, J. (1971). Perception: II. Space and movement. In J. W. Kling and L. A. Riggs (Eds.), Woodworth and Schlosberg's experimental psychology (3rd ed.; pp. 475–550). New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
17.
Holway, A. H., and Boring, E. G. (1941). Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 21–37.
18.
Hull, J. C., Gill, R. T., and Roscoe, S. N. (1982). Locus of the stimulus to visual accommodation: Where in the world, or where in the eye?Human Factors, 24, 311–319.
19.
Iavecchia, J. H., Iavecchia, H. P., and Roscoe, S. N. (1983). The moon illusion revisited. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 54, 39–46.
20.
Kaufman, L., and Rock, I. (1962). The moon illusion. Scieentific American, 207, 260–268.
21.
Kraft, C. L., Farrell, R. J., and Boucek, G. P. (undated). Visual performance from the 737 cab as a function of pilot's position within the cab (unnumbered internal report). Seattle, WA: The Boeing Company.
22.
Leibowitz, H. W., Hennessy, R. T., and Owens, D. A. (1975). The intermediate resting position of accommodation and some implications for space perception. Psychologia, 18, 162–170.
23.
Malmstrom, F. V., and Randle, R. J. (1976). Effects of visual imagery on the accommodation response. Perception and Psychophysics, 19, 450–453.
24.
Morgan, M. W., Jr., (1957). The resting state of accommodation. American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy Of Optometry, 7, 347–352.
25.
Ohwaki, S. (1955). On the faetors determining accommodation: Research on size constancy phenomenon. Tohuku Psychologica Folia, 14, 147–158.
26.
Owens, D. A., and Leibowitz, H. W. (1975). The fixation point as a stimulus for accommodation. Vision Research, 15, 1161–1163.
27.
Palmer, E., and Cronn, F. W. (1973). Touehdown performance with computer graphics night visual attachment. In Proceedings of the AIAA Visual and Motion Simulation Conference (pp. 1–6). New York: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
28.
Poulton, E. C. (1975). Range effects in experiments on people. Americall Journal of Psychology, 88, 3–32.
29.
Randle, R. J. (1971). Volitional control of visual accommodation. In AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 82 on Adaptation and Acclimatisation in Aerospace Medicine (pp. 20.1-20.11). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO.
30.
Randle, R. J. (1975). The non-visual in visual accommodation. In Proceedings of the 75th International Conference on Cybernetics and Society (pp. 423–426). New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
31.
Randle, R. J., Roscoe, S. N., and Petitt, J. (1980). Effects of accommodation and magnification on aimpoint estimation in a simulated landing task (Tech. Paper NASA-TP-1635). Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
32.
Ritchie, M. L. (1973). Beyond linear perspective with computer generated displays. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of The Human Factors Society (pp. 52–55). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
33.
Roscoe, S. N. (1948). The effects of eliminating binocular and peripheral monocular visual cues upon airplane pilot performance in landing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 649–662.
34.
Roscoe, S. N. (1950). Aircraft pilot performance as a function of the extent and magnification of the visible horizon. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
35.
Roscoe, S. N. (1951). Flight by periscope: I. Performing an instrument flight pattern; the influence of screen size and image magnification. University of Illinois Bulletin, 48 (55; Aeronautics Bulletin 9).
36.
Roscoe, S. N. (1977). How big the moon, how fat the eye? (Tech. Report ARL-77-9/AFOSR-77-8). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Aviation Research Laboratory.
37.
Roscoe, S. N. (1979). When day is done and shadows fall, we miss the airport most of all. Human Factors, 21, 721–731.
38.
Roscoe, S. N. (1980). Bigness is in the eye of the beholder. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Psychology in the Department of Defense (pp. 39–80). Colorado Springs: USAF Academy.
39.
Roscoe, S. N. (1982). Landing airplanes, detecting traffic, and the dark focus. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 970–976.
40.
Roscoe, S. N., Hasler, S. G., and Dougherty, D. J. (1966). Flight by periscope: Making takeoffs and landings; the influcnce of image magnification, practice, and various conditions of flight. Human Factors, 8, 13–40. (Originally issued in 1952 by the Office of Naval Research as Human Engineering Report 71-16-9; declassified in 1963.)
41.
Roscoe, S. N., Olzak, L. A., and Randle, R. J. (1976). Ground-referenced visual orientation with imaging displays: Monocular versus binocular accommodation and judgments of relative size. In Proceedings of the AGARD Aerospace Medical Panel Specialists Meeting, AthenS, Greece (pp. A6.1–A6.9). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO.
42.
Schlosberg, H. (1941). Stereoscopic depth from single pictures. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 601–605.
43.
Simonelli, N. M. (1979). The dark focus of visual accommodation: Its existence, its measurement, its effects (Tech. Report BEL-79-3/AFOSR-79-7). Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State Univcrsity, Behavioral Engineering Laboratory.
44.
Simonelli, N. M., and Roscoe, S. N. (1979). Apparent size and visual accommodation under day and night conditions (Tech. Report Eng Psy-79-3/AFOSR-79-3). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Psychology.
45.
Weintraub, D. J., and Gardner, G. T. (1970). Emmert's laws: Size constancy vs. optical geometry. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 40–54.
46.
Wheatstone, C. (1852). The Bakerian lecture: Contributions to the physiology of vision: Part the second, on some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision (continued). Philosophical Magazine (Series 4), 3, 504–523.
47.
Young, F. A. (1948). The projection of after-images and Emmert's law. Journal of General Psychology, 39, 161–166.
48.
Young, F. A. (1952). Studies of the projected after-images: III. The projection over large distances. Journal of General Psychology, 47, 207–212.
