Abstract
Three experiments, using a reaction time paradigm, examine the direct (stimulus bound) and indirect (mediational inference) approaches to size perception. Subjects determine which of two stimuli is the larger when the two can be at different egocentric distances. The effects of two variables on reaction times are examined—distal ratio, the ratio of physical sizes of the stimuli, and proximal ratio, the ratio of the angular projections of the stimuli on the retina. In Experiment 1, both ratios are found to affect reaction times, with the proximal ratios yielding the larger effect, more in line with the predictions of the indirect approach. But the results of Experiments 2 and 3 indicate that distance is taken into greater account, the more similar the distal sizes of the stimuli. In one stimulus condition, distance appears not to affect reaction times. It is suggested that direct size perception occurs for large stimulus differences, indirect size perception for smaller differences. The identical results of the two experiments, one with and one without texture, point to some variable other than texture occlusion or interception as the stimulus for direct size perception. Some aspect of distance from the eye-level plane is suggested as an alternative.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Note
Sternberg, S.Four theories of the effect of distance on apparent size. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. I.ouis, October 1966.
References
Beck, J.Surface color perception. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972.
Broota, K. O., &Epstein, W. The time it takes to make veridical size and distance judgments.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 358–364.
Carlson, V. R. Instructions and perceptual constancy judgments. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Carr, H. A.An introduction to space perception. New York: Longmans, Green, 1935.
Epstein, W. Attitudes of judgment and the size-distance invariance hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963,66, 78–83.
Epstein, W. The process of ‘taking-into-account’ in visual perception.Perception, 1973,2, 267–285.
Epstein, W. Observations concerning the contemporary analysis of the perceptual constancies. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Epstein, W., &Broota, K. D. Attitude of judgment and reaction time in estimation of size at a distance.Perception & Psychophysics, 1975,18, 201–204.
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.
Gibson, J. J.The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.
Gibson, J. J.The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Helmholtz, H.Von Treatise on physiological optics (trans. J. C. P. Southall). Rochester, N.Y: Optical Society of America, 1925.
Hochberg, J. Perception: II. Space and movement. In J. Kling & L. Riggs (Eds.),Woodworth and Schlosberg’s Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
Hochberg, J. Higher-order stimuli and interresponse coupling in the perception of the visual world. In R. B. MacLeod & H. L. Pick, Jr. (Eds.),Perception: Essays in honor of James J. Gibson. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974.
Mace, W. M. James, J. Gibson’s strategy for perceiving: Ask not what’s inside your head, but what your head’s inside of. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.),Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.
Oyama, T. Analysis of causa! relations in the perceptual constancies. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Pillsbury, W. B.The fundamentals of psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1916.
Rock, I. In defense of unconscious inference. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Shaw, R., &Bransford, J. Introduction: Psychological approaches to the problem of knowledge. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.),Perceiving, acting and knowing. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.
Teichner, W. H., &Krebs, M. J. Laws of visual choice reaction time.Psychological Review, 1974,81, 75–98.
Turvey, M. T. Contrasting orientations to the theory of visual information processing.Psychological Review, 1977,84, 67–88.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Haifa.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norman, J. Direct and indirect perception of size. Perception & Psychophysics 28, 306–314 (1980). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204389
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204389