Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that size constancy—invariance of perceived size of objects as they change retinal size because of changes in distance—depends solely on retinal stimulation and vergence, but on no other action-related signals. Distance to an object can change through displacement of either the observer or the object. The common assumption predicts that the two types of displacement should lead to the same degree of size constancy. We measured size constancy while observers viewed stationary stimuli at different distances. Changes in distance between trials were either actively produced by the observer or generated by real or simulated object displacement, with retinal stimulation held constant across the movement conditions. Responses were always closer to perfect constancy for observer than for object movement. Thus, size constancy is enhanced by information from observer displacement, and, more generally, processes thought to be purely perceptual may have unexpected components related to action.

Keywords

size perception action constancy vision

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Biersdorf

W.R.

Ohwaki

Kozil

D.J.

(1963). The effect of instructions and oculomotor adjustments on apparent size. American Journal of Psychology, 76, 1–17.

Carey

D.P.

Allan

(1996). A motor signal and “visual” size perception. Experimental Brain Research, 110, 482–486.

Carlson

V.R.

(1960). Overestimation in size-constancy judgments. American Journal of Psychology, 73, 199–213.

Colas

Droulez

Wexler

Bessière

(2007). A unified probabilistic model of the perception of three-dimensional structure from optic flow. Biological Cybernetics, 97, 461–477.

Efron

Tibshirani

(1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Gilinsky

A.S.

(1955). The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. American Journal of Psychology, 68, 173–192.

Gregory

R.L.

(1963). Distortion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling. Nature, 199, 678–680.

Heinemann

E.G.

Tulving

Nachmias

(1959). The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size. American Journal of Psychology, 72, 32–45.

Hershenson

(1998). Visual space perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Hoffman

D.M.

Girshick

A.R.

Akeley

Banks

M.S.

(2008). Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision, 8(3), Article 33. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from http://journalofvision.org/8/3/33/

11.

Holway

Boring

(1941). Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 21–37.

12.

Jenkin

(1957). Effects of varied distance on short-range size judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 327–331.

13.

McKee

S.P.

Welch

(1992). The precision of size constancy. Vision Research, 32, 1447–1460.

14.

Mon-Williams

Tresilian

J.R.

(1999). Some recent studies on the extraretinal contribution to distance perception. Perception, 28, 167–181.

15.

Mon-Williams

Tresilian

J.R.

Plooy

Wann

J.P.

Broerse

(1997). Looking at the task in hand: Vergence eye movements and perceived size. Experimental Brain Research, 117, 501–506.

16.

Morgan

Watamaniuk

S.N.

McKee

S.P.

(2000). The use of an implicit standard for measuring discrimination thresholds. Vision Research, 40, 2341–2349.

17.

Naji

Freeman

(2004). Perceiving depth order during pursuit eye movement. Vision Research, 44, 3025–3034.

18.

Ramsay

Carey

Jackson

(2007). Visual-proprioceptive mismatch and the Taylor Illusion. Experimental Brain Research, 176, 173–181.

19.

Taylor

F.V.

(1941). Change in size of the afterimage induced in total darkness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 75–80.

20.

Ullman

(1979). The interpretation of visual motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

21.

Umemura

Watanabe

(2009). Interpretation of optic flows synchronized with observer’s hand movements. Vision Research, 49, 834–842.

22.

Weiss

Simoncelli

E.P.

Adelson

E.H.

(2002). Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 598–604.

23.

Wexler

(2005). Anticipating the three-dimensional consequences of eye movements. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 1246–1251.

24.

Wexler

Lamouret

Droulez

(2001). The stationarity hypothesis: An allocentric criterion in visual perception. Vision Research, 41, 3023–3037.

25.

Wexler

Panerai

Lamouret

Droulez

(2001). Self-motion and the perception of stationary objects. Nature, 409, 85–88.

26.

Wichman

Hill

(2001). The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1293–1313.

27.

Wurtz

(2008). Neuronal mechanisms of visual stability. Vision Research, 48, 2070–2089.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB

Observer Movement and Size Constancy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material