Skip to main content
Download PDF

Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images

Perception & Psychophysics volume 66, pages 679–691 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

We investigated spatial perception of virtual images that were produced by convex and plane mirrors. In Experiment 1, 36 subjects reproduced both the perceived size and the perceived distance of virtual images for five targets that had been placed at a real distance of 10 or 20 m. In Experiment 2, 30 subjects verbally judged both the perceived size and the perceived distance of virtual images for five targets that were placed at each of five real distances of 2.5–45 m. In both experiments, the subjects received objective-size and objective-distance instructions. The results were that (1) size constancy was attained for a distance of up to 45 m, (2) distance was readily discriminated within this distance range, although virtual images produced by the mirror of strong curvature were judged to be farther away than those produced by the mirrors of less curvature, and (3) the ratio of perceived size to perceived distance was described as a power function of visual angle, and the ratio for the convex mirror was larger than that for the plane mirror. We compared the taking-into-account model and the direct perception model on the basis of a correlation analysis for proximal, virtual, and real levels of the stimuli. The taking-into-account model, which assumes that visual angle is transformed into perceived size by taking perceived distance into account, was supported by an analysis for the proximal level of stimuli. The direct perception model, which assumes that there is no inferential process between perceived size and perceived distance, was partially supported by an analysis for the distal level of the stimuli.

References

  • Adolfson, J., &Berghage, T. (1974).Perception and performance under water. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. C., &Wagner, M. (1991). Transformation theory of size judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 852–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barac-Cikoja, D., &Turvey, M. T. (1995). Does perceived size depend on perceived distance? An argument from extended haptic perception.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broota, K. D., &Epstein, W. (1973). The time it takes to make vertical size and distance judgments.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 358–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, W. (1973). The process of “taking-into-account” in visual perception.Perception,2, 267–285.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, W. (1977). Historical introduction to constancies. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception: Mechanisms and processes (pp. 1–22). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, W., &Broota, K. D. (1975). Attitude of judgment and reaction time in estimation of size at a distance.Perception & Psychophysics,18, 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, W., &Landauer, A. A. (1969). Size and distance judgments under reduced conditions of viewing.Perception & Psychophysics,6, 269–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, W., Park, J., &Casey, A. (1961). The current status of the size-distance hypotheses.Psychological Bulletin,58, 491–514.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. M. (1967). Binocular disparity and perceived relative distance: An examination of two hypotheses.Vision Research,7, 655–670.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. M. (1968). Depth, size and distance in stereoscopic vision.Perception & Psychophysics,3, 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1950).The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1964). Size cue to visually perceived distance.Psychological Bulletin,62, 217–235.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1969). The sensing of retinal size.Vision Research,9, 1079–1094.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1973a). The organization of perceived space: I. Consequences of perceptual interactions.Psychologische Forschung,36, 195–221.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1973b). The organization of perceived space: II. Perceptual interactions.Psychologische Forschung,36, 223–247.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1998). An analysis of perceptions from changes in optical size.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 805–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C., &Da Silva, J. A. (1987). Familiar size and the theory of off-sized perceptions.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C., Wist, E. R., &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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. S. (1965). Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision.Psychological Review,72, 419–444.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayashibe, K. (2002). Apparent distance in actual, three-dimensional video-recorded, and virtual reality.Perceptual & Motor Skills,95, 573–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, R., &Gottlieb, N. (1958). A technique for studying adaptation to disarranged hand-eye coordination.Perceptual & Motor Skills,8, 83–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershenson, M. (1992). Size-distance invariance: Kinetic invariance is different from static invariance.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 541–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higashiyama, A. (1977). Perceived size and distance as a perceptual conflict between two processing modes.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 206–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higashiyama, A., Ishikawa, T., &Tanaka, K. (1990). Visual alleys as a function of instructions under informative and reduced conditions of viewing.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 468–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higashiyama, A., &Kitano, S. (1991). Perceived size and distance of persons in natural outdoor settings: The effects of familiar size.Psychologia,34, 188–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higashiyama, A., &Shimono, K. (1994). How accurate is size and distance perception for very far terrestrial objects? Function and causality.Perception & Psychophysics,55, 429–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higashiyama, A., Yokoyama, Y., &Shimono, K. (2001). Perceived distance of targets in convex mirrors.Japanese Psychological Research,43, 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, T. L., Kall, D., &Baird, J. C. (1989). Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance.Memory & Cognition,17, 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaess, D. W. (1980). Instructions and decision times of size-constancy responses.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 477–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, F. P., &Ittelson, W. H. (1953). The size-distance invariance hypothesis.Psychological Review,60, 223–231.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, A. A., &Epstein, W. (1969). Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size?Perception & Psychophysics,6, 273–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, J. (1980). Direct and indirect perception of size.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 306–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H., O’Reiley, J., &Herman, L. (1970). Underwater distance distortion within a manual work space.Human Factors,12, 473–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyama, T. (1974). Perceived size and perceived distance in stereoscopic vision and an analysis of their causal relations.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 175–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyama, T. (1977). Analysis of causal relations in the perceptual constancies. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception (pp. 183–216). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Predebon, J. (1992). The role of instructions and familiar size in absolute judgments of size and distance.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I. (1966).The nature of perceptual adaptation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I. (1975).An introduction to perception. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I. (1984).Perception. New York: Scientific American Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., &Ebenholtz, S. (1959). The relational determination of perceived size.Psychological Review,66, 387–401.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. E. (1968). Water, fog and the size-distance invariance hypothesis.British Journal of Psychology,58, 301–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. E., &Rejman, M. H. (1972). Adaptation to speed distortions under water.British Journal of Psychology,63, 257–264.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sedgwick, H. A. (1986). Space perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 21-1 to 21-57). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teghtsoonian, M. (1970). The effects of size and distance on magnitude estimations of apparent size.American Journal of Psychology,83, 601–612.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teghtsoonian, M. (1974). The doubtful phenomenon of over-constancy. In H. R. Moskowitz, B. Scharf, & J. C. Stevens (Eds.),Sensation and measurement: Papers in honor of S. S. Stevens (pp. 411–420). Dordorecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer, H. C. (1979). Interrelation of the effects of binocular disparity and perspective cues on judgments of depth and height.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 481–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernoy, M. W. (1989). Simultaneous adaptation to size, distance, and curvature underwater.Human Factors,31, 77–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vernoy, M. W., &Luria, S. M. (1977). Perception of, and adaptation to, a three-dimensional curvature distortion.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 245–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J. M., &Teghtsoonian, M. (1972). The effects of perspective alterations on apparent size and distance scales.Perception & Psychophysics,11, 294–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, H., &Zuckerman, C. (1963). The constancy of stereoscopic depth.American Journal of Psychology,76, 404–412.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiest, W. M., &Bell, B. (1985). Stevens’s exponent for psychophysical scaling of perceived, remembered, and inferred distance.Psychological Bulletin,98, 457–470.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Ritsumeikan University, Kita-ku, 603-8577, Kyoto, Japan

    Atsuki Higashiyama

  2. Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan

    Koichi Shimono

Authors
  1. Atsuki Higashiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koichi Shimono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atsuki Higashiyama.

Additional information

This study was supported by research funds provided by Ritsumeikan University.

Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, headed by Neil Macmillan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Higashiyama, A., Shimono, K. Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images. Perception & Psychophysics 66, 679–691 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194911

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194911

Keywords

  • Visual Angle
  • Plane Mirror
  • Virtual Image
  • Distance Judgment
  • Real Distance