Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The size-distance invariance hypothesis suggests that the perceived size and the perceived distance of objects in a field viewed naturally are closely related. However, this relationship breaks down when scenes are viewed through high-power optical systems. When natural scenes are viewed through an imaging display of unity magnification, there is a reduction in their apparent size. This raises the question of whether the relationship breaks down when scenes are viewed through a low-power imaging display. A single-lens reflex camera was used as an imaging display that enabled subjects to vary the size of imaged real-world scenes. Judgments of size were found to vary with depth information in scenes and between monocular and binocular viewing, consistent with a previous finding, but judgments of distance did not vary significantly across either of these conditions. The results suggest that judgments of size and judgments of distance with imaging displays are not influenced uniformly by environmental and task variables.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baird, J. C. , and Biersdorf, W. R. (1967). Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 161–166.

Day, R. H. , and Parks, T. E. (1989). To exorcise a ghost from the perceptual machine. In M. Hershenson (Ed.), The moon illusion (pp. 343–350). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gilinsky, A. S. (1951). Perceived size and distance in visual space. Psychological Review, 58, 460–482.

Gogel, W. C. , Wist, E. R. , and Harker, G. S. (1963). A test of the invariance of the ratio of perceived size to perceived distance. American Journal of Psychology, 76, 537–553.

Gruber, H. E. (1954). The relation of perceived size to perceived distance in visual space. American Journal of Psychology, 67, 411–426.

Haber, R. N. (1987). Why low-flying fighter planes crash: Perceptual and attentional factors in collisions with the ground. Human Factors, 29, 519–532.

Hartman, A. M. (1964). Effect of reduction on the relationship between apparent size and distance. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 353–366.

Hershenson, M . (Ed.). (1989). The moon illusion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Higashiyama, A. , and Ueyama, E. (1988). The perception of vertical and horizontal distances in indoor settings. Perception and Psychophysics, 44, 151–156.

10.

Hochberg, J. (1972). Perception II: Space and movement. In J. W. Kling and L. A. Riggs (Eds.), Woodworth and Schlosberg's experimental psychology (pp. 475–550). London: Methuen.

11.

Holway, A. H. , and Boring, E. G. (1941). Determinants of apparent visual size. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 21–37.

12.

lavecchia, J. P. , lavecchia, H. P. , and Roscoe, S. N. (1983). The moon illusion revisited. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 54, 39–46.

13.

lavecchia, J. P. , lavecchia, H. P. , and Roscoe, S. N. (1988). Eye accommodation to virtual head-up images. Human Factors, 30, 689–702.

14.

Kilpatrick, F. P. , and Ittleson, W. H. (1953). The size distance invariance hypothesis. Psychological Review, 60, 223–231.

15.

Künnapas, T. M. (1960). Scales for subjective distance. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1, 187–192.

16.

Leibowitz, H. W. , and Owens, D. A. (1975). Anomalous myopias and the intermediate dark focus of accommodation. Science, 189, 646–648.

17.

Meehan, J. W. (1990). Apparent minification in an imaging display. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

18.

Meehan, J. W. , and Triggs, T. J. (1988). Magnification effects with imaging displays depend on scene content and viewing condition. Human Factors, 30, 487–494.

19.

Ogle, K. N. (1964). Researches in binocular vision. New York: Hafner.

20.

Roscoe, S. N. (1979). When day is done and shadows fall, we miss the airport most of all. Human Factors, 21, 721–731.

21.

Roscoe, S. N. (1984), Judgments of size and distance with imaging displays. Human Factors, 26, 617–629.

22.

Roscoe, S. N. (1985). Bigness is in the eye of the beholder. Human Factors, 27, 615–636.

23.

Roscoe, S. N. , Hasler, S. G. , and Dougherty, D. J. (1966). Flight by periscope: Making takeoffs and landings; the influence of image magnification, practice, and various conditions of flight. Human Factors, 8, 13–40.

24.

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 AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 201 (pp. A5-1-A5–9). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development.

25.

Thouless, R. H. (1931). Phenomenal regression to the real object. British Journal of Psychology, 21, 339–359.

26.

Thouless, R. H. (1968). Apparent size and distance in vision through a magnifying system. British Journal of Psychology, 59, 111–118.

Apparent Size and Distance in an Imaging Display

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References