Abstract
In a recent note, Eriksson criticized Gibson’s theory by arguing that visual perception of distance is not solely a function of optical stimulation. It is shown here that the optic array does specify distance, and that the limitations of visual information are precisely defined in the theory. Visual information alone is insufficient when judgments in arbitrary metric units are required. The limitation of the theory is not in the specification of potential and effective information, but in the description of the observer’s response to that information.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, A.Camera and lens. New York: Morgan & Morgan, 1970.
Ball, W., &Tronick, E. Infant responses to impending collision: Optical and real.Science, 1971, 171, 818–820.
Bower, T. G. R., Broughton, J. M., &Moore, M. K. Infant responses to approaching objects: An indicator of response to distal variables.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,9, 193–196.
Braunstein, M. L. Motion and texture as sources of slant information.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968,78, 247–253.
Eriksson, W., &Park, J. Examination of Gibson’s psychophysical hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin, 1964,62, 180–196.
Eriksson, E. S. Distance perception and the ambiguity of visual stimulation: A theoretical note.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,13, 379–381.
Flock, H. R. A possible optical basis for monocular slant perception.Psychological Review, 1964,71, 380–391.
Flock, H. R. Optical texture and linear perspective as stimuli for slant perception.Psychological Review, 1965,72, 505–514.
FLock, H. R., &Moscattelli, A. Variables of surface texture and accuracy of space perception.Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1964,19, 327–334.
Gibson, E. J.Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century, 1969.
Gibson, E. J., &Bergman, R. The effect of training on absolute estimation of distance over the ground.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954,48, 473–482.
Gibson, J. J.The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950.
Gibson, J. J. Perception as a function of stimulation. In S. Koch (Ed.),Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. pp. 456–501.
Gibson, J. J.The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.
Gibson J. J., Olum, P., &Rosenblatt, F. Parallax and perspective during aircraft landings.American Journal of Psychology, 1955,68, 372–385.
Harway, N. Judgment of distance in children and adults.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963,65, 385–390.
Johansson, G. Monocular movement parallax and near-space perception.Perception, 1973,2, 135–146.
Levine, N., Rosinski, R. R., & McDowell, E. Texture gradients in children’s perception of surface slant. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association, May 1973.
Purdy, W. C. The hypothesis of psychophysical correspondence in space perception. General Electric Technical Information Series, No. R60ELC56, 1960.
Schiff, W. The perception of impending collision: A study of visually directed avoidant behavior.Psychological Monographs, 1965,79, Whole No. 604.
Sedgwick, H. The visible horizon: A potential source of visual information for the perception of size and distance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1973.
Wohlwill, J. F. Texture of the stimulus field and age as variables in the perception of relative distance in photographic slides.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1965,2, 163–177.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The author wishes to thank James Gibson, Donald McBurney, Bruce Goldstein, and Roberta Golinkoff for their comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rosinski, R.R. On the ambiguity of visual stimulation: A reply to Eriksson. Perception & Psychophysics 16, 259–263 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203939
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203939