Abstract
Recognition memory for shapes has been shown to depend on differences between the size of shapes at the time of encoding and at the time of the memory test (Jolicoeur, 1987). Experiment 1 of the present paper replicates this effect and establishes a set of parameters used in the subsequent experiments. Experiment 2 considers the results of Experiment 1 in light of the distinction between “perceived” size, which, under normal viewing conditions, varies minimally with changes in distance between the observer and object, and “retinal” size, which varies proportionally with viewing distance as an object is moved closer to or farther from an observer. Subjects studied novel shapes and performed a recognition memory test in which the distance from the subject to the viewing screen at the time of testing was different from that at the time of encoding. The viewing distance and the size of the shapes were manipulated such that perceived and retinal sizes were dissociated. The results suggest that the size-congruency effect in memory for visual shape occurs as a result of changes in the perceived size of shapes between the encoding and the testing phases, with little or no contribution of retinal size perse.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Besner, D. (1983). Visual pattern recognition: Size preprocessing reexamined.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,35A, 209–216.
Besner, D., &Coltheart, M. (1976). Mental size scaling examined.Memory & Cognition,4, 525–531.
Brosgole, L., Plahovinsak, T. J., Roig, M., &Notaro, J. P. (1985). The role of perceived distance in determining apparent visual size.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,23, 489–492.
Bundesen, C., &Larsen, A. (1975). Visual transformation of size.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 214–220.
Epstein, W., &Landauer, A. A. (1969). Size and distance judgments under reduced conditions of viewing.Perception & Psychophysics,6, 269–272.
Epstein, W., Park, J., &Casey, A. (1961). The current status of the size-distance invariance hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin,58, 491–514.
Gogel, W. C. (1965). Equidistance tendency and its consequences.Psychological Bulletin,64, 153–163.
Gogel, W. C. (1969a). Equidistance effects in visual fields,American Journal of Psychology,82, 342–349.
Gogel, W. C. (1969b). The sensing of retinal size.Vision,9, 1079–1094.
Gogel, W. C. (1971). The validity of the size-distance invariance hypothesis with cue reduction.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 92–94.
Gogel, W. C., &Da Silva, J. A. (1987a). Familiar size and thetheory of off-sized perceptions.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 318–328.
Gogel, W. C., &Da Silva, J. A. (1988b). A two-process theory of the response to size and distance.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 220–238.
Goldmeier, E. (1972). Similarity in visually perceived forms.Psychological Issues,8 (1, Whole No. 29), 1–135.
Holway, A. H., &Boring, E. G. (1941). Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant.American Journal of Psychology,54, 21–37.
Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects.Memory & Cognition,13, 289–303.
Jolicoeur, P. (1987), A size-congruency effect in memory for visual shape.Memory & Cognition,15, 531–543.
Jolicoeur, P. (1988). Mental rotation and the identification of disoriented objects.Canadian Journal of Psychology,42, 461–478.
Jolicoeur, P. (1990). On the role of mental rotation and feature extraction in the identification of disoriented objects: A dual-systems theory.Mind & Language,5, 387–410.
Jolicoeur, P., &Besner, D. (1987). Additivity and interaction between size ratio and response category in the comparison of size-discrepant shapes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 478–487.
Jolicoeur, P., &Milliken, B. (1989). Identification of disoriented objects: Effects of context of prior presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 200–210.
Kjlpatrick, F. P., &Ittelson, W. H. (1953). The size-distance invariance hypothesis.Psychological Review,60, 223–231.
Kolers, P. A., Ducrnicky, R. L., &Sundstroem, G. (1985). Size in the visual processing of faces and words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 726–751.
Kolers, P. A., &Roediger, H. L. (1984). Procedures of mind.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 425–449.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1980).Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Landauer, A. A., &Epstein, W. (1969). Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size?Perception & Psychophysics,6, 273–275.
Larsen, A. (1985). Pattern matching: Effects of size ratio, angular difference in orientation, and familiarity.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 63–68.
Larsen, A., &Bundesen, C. (1978). Size scaling in visual pattern recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 1–20.
Lichten, W., &Lurie, S. (1950). A new technique for the study of perceived size.American Journal of Psychology,63, 281–282.
Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Marr, D., &Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B,200, 269–294.
McMullen, P. A., &Jolicoeur, P. (1990). The spatial frame of reference in object naming and discrimination of left-right reflections.Memory & Cognition,18, 99–115.
Posner, M. I., &Mitchell, R. F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification.Psychological Review,74, 392–409.
Rock, I. (1956). The orientation of forms on the retina and in the environment.American Journal of Psychology,69, 513–528.
Rock, I. (1973).Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.
Rock, I. (1974). The perception of disoriented figures.Scientific American,230, 78–85.
Rock, I., Divita, J., &Barbeito, R. (1981). The effect on form perception of change of orientation in the third dimension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 719–732.
Rock, I., &Heimer, W. (1957). The effects of retinal and phenomenal orientation on the perception of form.American Journal of Psychology,70, 493–511.
Sekuler, R., &Nash, D. (1972). Speed of size scaling in human vision.Psychonomic Science,21, 93–94.
Takano, Y. (1989). Perception ofrotated forms: A theory of infonnation types.Cognitive Psychology,21, 1–59.
Tanner, P. P., Joucoeur, P., Cowan, W. B., Booth, K., &Fishman, F. D. (1989). Antialiasing: A technique for smoothing jagged lines on a computer graphics image—An implementation for the AMIGA.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,21, 59–66.
Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1989). Similarity information versus relational information: Differences in the time course of retrieval.Cognitive Psychology,21, 139–155.
Wallach, H., &Mckenna, V. V. (1960). On size perception in the absence of cues for distance.American Journal of Psychology,73, 458–460.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by a postgraduate scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council awarded to Bruce Mi]liken, and by grant 0GP0000795 from the Natural Sciencesand Engineering Research Council awarded to Pierre Jolicoeur.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Milliken, B., Jolicoeur, P. Size effects in visual recognition memory are determined by perceived size. Mem Cogn 20, 83–95 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208257
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208257