Abstract
Size constancy is the ability to perceive objects as remaining constant in size regardless of their distance from the observer. Emmert’s law demonstrates that viewing distance determines the perceived size of afterimages according to the amount of depth cues that are available. Using an afterimage paradigm, we examined to what extent removing stereopsis and other depth cues affects size–distance scaling. Thirty participants ‘projected’ afterimages onto a surface presented at different distances under binocular, monocular, and eyes-closed conditions. The perceived size of the afterimages closely followed the size–distance scaling predictions made by Emmert’s law under binocular testing conditions, when all depth cues were available. In contrast, monocular testing decreased adherence to Emmert’s law, while the eyes-closed condition resulted in a greater breakdown of size–distance scaling. Because we used an afterimage paradigm, this study provides the first demonstration of how perceived size is modulated by the availability of depth cues under conditions with a constant retinal image stimulus.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews D (1964) Error-correcting perceptual mechanisms. Q J Exp Psychol 16(2):104–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216408416355
Ball EAW (1952) A study in consensual accommodation. Optom Vis Sci 29(11):561–574
Boring EG (1964) Size-constancy in a picture. Am J Psychol 77(3):494. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421027
Brindley GS (1962) Two new properties of foveal after-images and a photochemical hypothesis to explain them. J Physiol 164(1):168. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp007011
Burton HE (1945) The optics of Euclid. J Opt Soc Am 35(5):357–372
Craik KJW (1940) Origin of visual after-images. Nature 145(3674):512. https://doi.org/10.1038/145512a0
Descartes R (1637) 1637/1958: dioptric, Modern Library, New York.
Ebenholtz SM (2001) Oculomotor systems and perception. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Emmert E (1881) Grossenverhaltnisse der nachbilder. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 19:443–450
Enright J (1987a) Perspective vergence: oculomotor responses to line drawings. Vision Res 27(9):1513–1526
Enright JT (1987b) Art and the oculomotor system: perspective illustrations evoke vergence changes. Perception 16(6):731–746. https://doi.org/10.1068/p160731
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2):175–191
Fincham EF, Walton J (1957) The reciprocal actions of accommodation and convergence. J Physiol 137(3):488–508
Foley JM (1980) Binocular distance perception. Psychol Rev 87(5):411–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.5.411
Gescheider GA (1985) Psychophysics: method, theory, and application. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey
Gogel WC (1965) Equidistance tendency and its consequences. Psychol Bull 64(3):153–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022197
Gogel WC (1969) The sensing of retinal size. Vision Res 9(9):1079–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(69)90049-2
Gogel WC, Tietz JD (1977) Eye fixation and attention as modifiers of perceived distance. Percept Mot Skills 45(2):343–362. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1977.45.2.343
Gregory R (1966) Eye and brain. World University Library, London
Gregory RL (1973) Eye and brain: the psychology of seeing. McGraw-Hill, New York
Hermans TG (1937) Visual size constancy as a function of convergence. J Exp Psychol 21(2):145–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058367
Holway AH, Boring EG (1941) Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. Am J Psychol 54(1):21–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417790
Howard IP (2002) Depth perception. In: Pashler HE, Yantis S (eds) Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology Sensation and Perception Vol 1, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, pp 77–120
Howard IP, Rogers BJ (1995) Binocular vision and stereopsis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Howard IP, Rogers BJ (2012) Perceiving in depth, Stereoscopic vision, vol 2. Oxford University Press, New York
Ittleson WH (1951) Size as a cue to distance: static localization. Am J Psychol 64:54–67
Jaschinski W, Jainta S, Hoormann J, Walper N (2007) Objective vs subjective measurements of dark vergence. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 27(1):85–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2006.00448.x
Kilpatrick FP, Ittelson WH (1953) The size-distance invariance hypothesis. Psychol Rev 60(4):223. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060882
Kirschfeld K (1999) Afterimages: a tool for defining the neural correlate of visual consciousness. Conscious Cogn 8(4):462–483. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0388
Lavie N (2005) Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends Cognit Sci 9(2):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004
Laycock R, Sherman JA, Sperandio I, Chouinard PA (2017) Size aftereffects are eliminated when adaptor stimuli are prevented from reaching awareness by continuous flash suppression. Front Hum Neurosci 11:479. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00479
Leibowitz H, Moore D (1966) Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size. J Opt Soc Am 56(8):1120–1123. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.56.001120
Miles WR (1930) Ocular dominance in human adults. J Gen Psychol 3(3):412–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1930.9918218
Mon-Williams M, Tresilian JR (1999) The size-distance paradox is a cognitive phenomenon. Exp Brain Res 126(4):578–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050766
Morgan MW (1968) Accomodation and Vergence. Optom Vis Sci 45(7):417–454
Morgan MJ (1992) On the scaling of size judgements by orientational cues. Vision Res 32(8):1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(92)90200-3
Owens DA (1984) The resting state of the eyes: our ability to see under adverse conditions depends on the involuntary focus and convergence of our eyes at rest. Am Sci 72(4):378–387
Owens DA, Leibowitz HW (1976) Oculomotor adjustments in darkness and the specific distance tendency. Percept Psychophys 20(1):2–9. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198694
Owens DA, Liebowitz H (1980) Accommodation, convergence, and distance perception in low illumination. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 57(9):540–550
Palmer SE (2002) Vision science: photons to phenomenology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Powell G, Sumner P, Bompas A (2015) The effect of eye movements and blinks on afterimage appearance and duration. J Vis 15(3):20–20
Qian J, Liu S, Lei Q (2016) Illusory distance modulates perceived size of afterimage despite the disappearance of depth cues. PLoS ONE 11(7):e0159228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159228
Ringach DL, Hawken MJ, Shapley R (1996) Binocular eye movements caused by the perception of three-dimensional structure from motion. Vision Res 36(10):1479–1492
Safra D, Otto J (1976) Objective determination of the consensual accommodation. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 168(1):87–89
Shimojo S, Kamitani Y, Nishida SY (2001) Afterimage of perceptually filled-in surface. Science 293(5535):1677–1680. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060161
Snellen H (1862) Suture for ectropion, 2nd Intl Congr d’Ophthalmol, 236:1862.
Sperandio I, Chouinard PA (2015) The mechanisms of size constancy. Multisens Res 28(3–4):253–283. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-00002483
Sperandio I, Chouinard PA, Goodale MA (2012a) Retinotopic activity in V1 reflects the perceived and not the retinal size of an afterimage. Nat Neurosci 15:540. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3069
Sperandio I, Lak A, Goodale MA (2012b) Afterimage size is modulated by size-contrast illusions. J Vis 12(2):18–18
Sperandio I, Kaderali S, Chouinard PA, Frey J, Goodale MA (2013) Perceived size change induced by nonvisual signals in darkness: the relative contribution of vergence and proprioception. J Neurosci 33(43):16915–16923. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0977-13.2013
Sperandio I, Unwin KL, Landry O, Chouinard PA (2017) Size constancy is preserved but afterimages are prolonged in typical individuals with higher degrees of self-reported autistic traits. J Autism Dev Disord 47(2):447–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2971-6
Stevens SS (1953) On the brightness of lights and the loudness of sounds. Science 118:576
Stevens SS (1958) Adaptation-level vs the relativity of judgment. The American Journal of Psychology 71(4):633–646. https://doi.org/10.2307/1420322
Taylor FV (1941) Change in size of the afterimage induced in total darkness. J Exp Psychol 29(1):75–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058125
Travis SL, Dux PE, Mattingley JB (2017) Re-examining the influence of attention and consciousness on visual afterimage duration. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 43(12):1944–1949. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000458
Tyler C (2004). Binocular vision. In: Tasman W, Jaeger EA (eds) Duane’s foundations of clinical ophthalmology, Vol 2, JB Lippincott Co, Philadelphia.
Van Boxtel JJ, Tsuchiya N, Koch C (2010) Opposing effects of attention and consciousness on afterimages. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(19):8883–8888. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913292107
Virsu V (1978) Retinal mechanisms of visual adaptation and afterimages. Med Biol 56(2):84–96
Wheatstone C (1838) XVIII. Contributions to the physiology of vision—part the first on some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 128:371–394. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1838.0019
Zwislocki JJ, Goodman DA (1980) Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: a validation. Percept Psychophys 28(1):28–38. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204312
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out with the support of La Trobe University’s School of Psychology and Public Health. We also thank Ritchie Millard for constructing the apparatus used in the experiments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Carlo Alberto Marzi.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Millard, A.S., Sperandio, I. & Chouinard, P.A. The contribution of stereopsis in Emmert’s law. Exp Brain Res 238, 1061–1072 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05747-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05747-5