Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us
Search
Cart
  1. Home
  2. Perception & Psychophysics
  3. Article
On size, distance, and visual angle perception
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Published: July 1985

On size, distance, and visual angle perception

  • Don McCready1 

Perception & Psychophysics volume 37, pages 323–334 (1985)Cite this article

  • 3247 Accesses

  • 76 Citations

  • 3 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin Standard descriptions of visual spatial experiences, especially illusions, create destructive paradoxes because, along with the perceived distance variable (D’), they use only one “perceived size” variable (S′) in the equation S′/D′ = V′ rad, to describe perception of a target’s linear size, S m, its distance, D m, from the eye, and the visual angle, V deg, its outer edges subtend at the eye. Simple paradoxes vanish in descriptions using the different equation, S’/D’ = V’ rad, which adds the perceived visual angle variable, V′ rad. Redefining classic illusions as illustrations primarily of misperceived direction difference (V) values removes the pseudoparadoxes that have made Extant explanations of illusions seem unsatisfactory.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

References

  • Anstis, S. M. (1974). Size adaptation to visual texture and print: Evidence for spatial frequency analysis.American Journal of Psychology,87, 261–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Attneave, F., &Pierce, C. R. (1978). Accuracy of extrapolating a pointer into perceived and imagined space.American Journal of Psychology,91, 371–387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Auerbach, C, &Sperling, P. (1974). A common auditory-visual space: Evidence for its reality.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 129–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. C. (1968). Toward a theory of frontal size judgments.Perception & Psychophysics,4, 49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. C. (1970).Psychophysical analysis of visual space. Oxford, London: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. C. (1982). The moon illusion: II. A reference theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbeito, R., &Ono, H. (1979). Four methods of locating the egocenter: A comparison of the predictive validities and reliabilities.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,11, 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A. G., &Francis, J. L. (1962). Visual optics. In H. Davson (Ed.),The eye (Vol. 4, Pt. 1, pp. 3–208). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biersdorf, W. R. (1966). Convergence and apparent distance as correlates of size judgments at near distances.Journal of General Psychology,75, 249–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, C, Nachmias, J., &Sutton, P. (1970) The perceived spatial frequency shift: Evidence for frequency selective neurones in the human brain.Journal of Physiology,210, 727–750.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, C, &Sutton, P. (1969). Size adaptation.A new aftereffect. Science,166, 245–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolles, R. C. &Bailey, D. E. (1956). Importance of object recognition in size constancy.Journal of Experimental Psychology,51, 222–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boring, E. G. (1952). Visual perception as invariance.Psychological Review,59, 141–148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1944). Distal focussing of perception: Size constancy in a representative sample of situations.Psychological Monographs, Whole No. 254.

  • Campbell, F. W., &Maffei, L. (1970). Electrophysiological evidence for the existence of orientation and size detectors in the human visual system.Journal of Physiology,207, 635–652.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, V. R. (1977). Instructions and perceptual constancy judgments. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception: Mechanisms and processes (pp. 217–254). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (1969). The influence of haptic size information upon visual judgments of absolute distance.Perception & Psychophysics,5, 143–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (1970). The effect of verbal size information upon visual judgments of absolute distance.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 222–223,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coren, S., &Girgus, J. S. (1977). Illusions and constancies. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception. Mechanisms and processes (pp. 255–283). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coren, S., &Girgus, J. S. (1978).Seeing is deceiving. The psychology of visual illusions. New York: Halstead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, R. H. (1972). Visual spatial illusions: A general explanation.Science,175, 1335–1340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Day, R. H., &McKenzie, B. E. (1977). Constancies in the perceptual world of the infant. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception: Mechanisms and processes (pp. 285–320). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, W. (1977b). Observations concerning the contemporary analysis of the perceptual constancies. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception: Mechanisms and processes (pp. 437–447) New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., Burnham, C. A., Ono, H., & Bamber, D. (1967). Efference and the conscious experience of perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 74(4, Whole No. 637).

  • Festinger, L., White, C. W., &Allyn, M. R. (1968). Eye movements and decrement in the Mueller-Lyer illusion.Perception & Psychophysics,3, 376–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, G. H. (1971). Geometrical illusions and figurai after-effects: The mechanism and its location.Vision Research,11, 289–309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, V., Pasnak, R., &Tyer, Z E. (1982). The effect of familiar size at familiar distance.Perception & Psychophysics,11, 85–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. M. (1965). Visual space: A scale of perceived relative direction.American Psychological Association Proceedings,1, 49–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganz, L. (1966a). Is the figurai aftereffect anaftereffect?Psychological Bulletin,66, 151–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ganz, L. (1966b) Mechanisms of the figurai aftereffects.Psychological Review,73, 128–150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1952). The visual field and the visual world: A reply to Professor Boring.Psychological Review,59, 149–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1971). The information available in pictures.Leonardo,4, 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilinsky, A. (1951). Perceived size and distance in visual space.Psychological Review,58, 460–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1963). The visual perception of size and distance.Vision Research,3, 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1965). Equidistance tendency and its consequences.Psychological Bulletin,64, 153–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1971). The validity of the size-distance invariance hypothesis with cue reduction.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 92–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1977). The metric of visual space. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception: Mechanisms and processes (pp. 129–181). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. L. (1963). Distortion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling.Nature,199, 678–680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. L. (1970).The intelligent eye. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. L. (1975). Illusion destruction by appropriate scaling.Perception,4, 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haber, R. N. (1980). Perceiving space from pictures: A theoretical analysis. In M. A. Hagen (Ed.),What then are pictures? The psychology of representational art (Vol. 1, pp. 3–31). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, M. A. (1974). Picture perception: Toward a theoretical model.Psychological Bulletin,81, 471–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hastorf, A. H. (1950). The influence of suggestion on the relationship between stimulus size and perceived distance.Journal of Psychology,29, 195–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, E. G., Tulving, E., &Nachmias, J. (1959). The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size.American Journal of Psychology,72, 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmholtz, H Von. (1962)Treatise on physiological optics (Vol. 3) (J. P. C. Southhall, Ed. and Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1910)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, E. (1942),Spatial sense and movements of the eye (C. Radde, Trans ). Baltimore: American Academy of Optometry. (Original work published 1879)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershenson, M. (1982). Moon illusion and spiral aftereffect: Illusions due to the loom-zoom system?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 423–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg, J. (1974). Higher-order stimuli and inter-response 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 (pp. 17–39). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holway, A. H., &Boring, E. G. (1941). Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant.American Journal of Psychology,54, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ittelson, W. H. (1960).Visual space perception. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, T. (1978). Ebbinghaus illusions: Size contrast or contour interaction phenomena?Perception & Psychophysics,24, 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, G. (1977). Spatial constancy and motion in visual perception. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception: Mechanisms and processes (pp. 375–419). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joynson, R. B. (1949). The problem of size and distance.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,1, 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joynson, R. B. (1958a). An experimental synthesis of the associationist and Gestalt accounts of the perception of size: Part 1.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,10, 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joynson, R. B. (1958b). An experimental synthesis of the associationist and Gestalt accounts of the perception of size: Part 2.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,10, 142–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joynson, R. B., &Kirk, N. S. (1960) An experimental synthesis of the associationist and Gestalt accounts of the perception of size: Part 3.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,12, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koffka, K. (1935).Principles of Gestalt psychology New York. Harcourt-Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komoda, M. K., Festinger, L., &Sherry, J. (1977). The accuracy of two-dimensional saccades in the absence of continuing retinal stimulation.Vision Research,17, 1231–1232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Komoda, M. K., &Ono, H. (1974). Oculomotor adjustments and sizedistance perceptionPerception & Psychophysics,15, 353–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., &Reiser, B. J. (1978). Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of imagery scanning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,4, 47–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, D. W., &Anderson, N. H. (1971). Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion.Journal of Experimental Psychology,89, 147–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCready, D (1964). Visual acuity under conditions that induce size illusions.Dissertation Abstracts International,24, 5573.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCready, D. (1965). Size-distance perception and accommodation-convergence micropsia: A critique.Vision Research,5, 189–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCready, D. (1983).Moon illusions and other visual illusions re-defined. (Psychology Department Report). Whitewater: University of Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, A., &Wallach, H. (1980). Familiar size and linear perspective as distance cues in stereoscopic depth constancy.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H. (1966). Distal and proximal size under reduced and non-reduced viewing conditions.American Journal of Psychology,79, 234–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H. (1969). Apparent distance as a function of familiar size.Journal of Experimental Psychology,79, 109–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H. (1970). Some thoughts on different perceptual tasks related to size and distance. In J. C. Baird (Ed.), Human space perception-Proceedings of the Dartmouth conference.Psychonomic Monograph Supplement, 3(13, Whole No. 45) pp. 143-151.

  • Ono, H. (1979). Axiomatic summary and deductions from Hering’s principles of visual direction.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 473–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H. (1981). On Well’s (1792) law of visual direction.Perception & Psychophysics,30, 403–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H., &Barbeito, R. (1982). The cyclopean eye vs. the sighting dominant eye as the center of visual direction.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H., Muter, P., &Mitson, L. (1974). Size-distance paradox with accommodative micropsia.Perception & Psychophysics,15, 301–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Over, R. (1968). Explanations of geometrical illusions.Psychological Bulletin,70, 545–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyama, T. (1977b) Feature analysers, optical illusions and figurai aftereffects.Perception,6, 401–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • PINKER, S. (1980). Mental imagery and the third dimension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 354–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • POSNER, M. (1980) Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32, 3–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • PRESSEY, A.W. (1972). The assimilation theory of geometric illusions: An additional postulate.Perception & Psychophysics,11, 28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • REMINGTON, R. W. (1980). Attention and saccadic eye movements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,6, 726–744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • RESTLE, F. (1970). Moon illusion explained on the basis of relative size.Science,167, 1092–1096.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • RESTLE, F. (1971). Visual illusions. In M. H. Appley (Ed.),Adaptation level theory (pp. 55–69). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RESTLE, F. (1978). Relativity and organization in visual size judgments. In E. L. J. Leeuwenberg & H. F. J M. Buffart (Eds).Formal the-ories of visual perception (pp. 247–263). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restle, F., &Merryman, C. T. (1968). An adaptation-level theory of a relative-size illusion.Psychonomic Science,12, 229–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, W. (1967). Apparent modifiability of receptive fields during accommodation and convergence and a model for size constancy.Neuropsychologia,5, 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, W. (1971). Size-distance transformations. In O. J. Grusser & R. Klinke (Eds.),Pattern recognition in biological and technical systems (pp. 276–287). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I. (1977). In defense of unconscious inference. In W Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception: Mechanisms and processes (pp 321–373). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROCK, I. (1983).The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., &Kaufman, L. (1962). The moon illusion, II.Science,136, 1023–1031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., &Mcdermott, W. (1964). The perception of visual angle.Acta Psychologica,22, 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., Shallo, J., &Schwartz, F. (1978). Pictorial depth and related constancy effects as a function of recognition.Perception,7, 3–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, C. O. (1959). Considerations on the visual egocentreActa Psychologica,16, 226–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltzman, D. C., &Garner, W. R. (1950). Accuracy of visual estimation of azimuth position.Journal of Psychology,29, 453–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, H. (1950) A note on depth perception, size constancy, and related topics.Psychological Review,57, 314–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shebilske, W. L. (1977). Visuomotor coordination in visual direction and position constancies. In W. Epstein (Ed.),Stability and constancy in visual perception: Mechanisms and processes (pp. 23–69). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, G. L., Remington, R. W., &Mclean, J. P. (1979). Moving attention through visual space.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,5, 522–526.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, F A, Tyer, Z. E., &Pasnak, R. (1982). Assumed distance as a determinant of apparent size.Perception & Psychophysics.19, 267–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. G. (1962).The behavioral basis of perception. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E. H. (1973). A mathematical theory of optical illusions and figurai aftereffects.Perception & Psychophysics,13, 467–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weintraub, D. J. (1979). Ebbinghaus illusion: Context, contour and age influence the judged size of a circle amidst circles.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,5, 353–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weintraub, D. J., &Gardner, G. T (1970). Emmert’s laws: Size constancy versus optical geometry.American Journal of Psychology,83, 40–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wende Roth, P (1976). The contribution of relational factors to line-length matches.Perception,5, 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R. S., &Schlosberg, H. (1954).Experimental Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarbus, A. L (1967).Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 800 West Main St., Whitewater, WI, 53190

    Don McCready

Authors
  1. Don McCready
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCready, D. On size, distance, and visual angle perception. Perception & Psychophysics 37, 323–334 (1985). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211355

Download citation

  • Received: 16 June 1983

  • Accepted: 27 February 1985

  • Issue Date: July 1985

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211355

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Visual Angle
  • Linear Size
  • Familiar Size
  • Figural Aftereffect
  • Ebbinghaus Illusion
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

Advertisement

search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Publish your research
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our imprints

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support

3.239.2.192

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature