Smith and Smith's (1966) recently published data on age changes in distance judgments are examined. With respect to their bisection method, which yielded results opposite to those found in previous studies, the presence of a possible methodological artifact is noted; the validity of the reproduction method, preferred by the authors, for the study of distance perception is also questioned. The merits of the Smiths’ distinction between depth and distance perception are discussed briefly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Denis-PrinzhornM.Recherches sur le développement des perceptions: Xxxix. Perception des distances et Constance des grandeurs (étude génétique.) Arch. Psychol., Genève, 1960, 37, 181–309.
2.
GogelW. C.The visual perception of size and distance. Vis. Res., 1963, 3, 101–120.
3.
LambercierM.Recherches sur le développement des perceptions: Vi. La Constance des grandeurs en comparaisons seriales. Arch. Psychol. Geneve, 1946, 31, 1–204.
4.
SmithO. W., & SmithP. C.Developmental studies of spatial judgments by children and adults. Percept, mot. Skills, 1966, 22, 3–73.
5.
WohlwillJ. F.Development of "overconstancy" in space perception. In LispettL. & SpikerC. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. I. New York: Academic Press, 1963. Pp. 265–312. (a)
6.
WohlwillJ. F.Overconstancy in distance perception as a function of the texture of the stimulus field and other variables. Percept. mot. Skills, 1963, 17, 831–846. (b)
