Abstract
Two experiments tested the hypothesis that the paradoxical relative distance judgment associated with the size-distance paradox is due to the visual system’s assuming equal linear size and perceiving a smaller angular size for the closer stimulus equal in visual angle. In Experiment I, two different sized coins were presented successively, and 16 Ss were asked to give ordinal judgments of apparent distance and apparent size. When the two coins depicted the same figures, the closer stimulus was judged to be farther and smaller, more frequently, than when two coins depicted different figures. In Experiment II, 48 Ss were asked to give ratio judgments of apparent distance, apparent linear size, and apparent angular size for two stimuli which were presented successively. When the stimuli were of equal shape, the mean ratios of the far stimulus to the near stimulus were smaller for the apparent distance but larger for the apparent linear size and angular size than when the stimuli were of different shape. The obtained distance judgments were consistent with the hypothesis but the obtained judgments of linear size and angular size were not.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baird, J. C.Psychophysical analysis of visual space. London: Pergamon Press, 1970.
Biersdorf, W. R., Ohwaki, S., & Kogil, D. J. The effect of instruction and oculomotor adjustments on apparent size. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 1–17.
Carlson, V. R. Overestimation in size-constancy judgments. American Journal of Psychology, 1960, 73, 199–213.
Epstein, W. Attitudes of judgement and the size-distance invariance hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 78–83.
Epstein, W., Park, J., & Casey, A. The current status of the size-distance hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 1961, 58, 491–514.
Foley, J. M. The size-distance relation and intrinsic geometry of visual space: Implications for processing. Vision Research, 1972, 12, 323–332.
Funaishi, S. Über das Zentrum der Sehrichtungen. Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für Ophthalmologie, 1926, 117, 296–303.
Gogel, W. C. The effect of object familiarity on the perception of size and distance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 21, 239–247.
Gogel, W. C. The organization of perceived space. In H. L. Teuber (Ed.), Handbook of sensory physiology. Vol. VII. New York: Spring er-Verlag, in press.
Gogel, W. C., & Newton, R. E. Perception of off-size objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 7–9.
Gogel, W. C., & Sturm, R. D. Directional separation and the size cue to distance. Psychologische Forschung, 1971, 35, 57–80.
Gogel, W. C., & Sturm, R. D. A comparison of accommodative and fusional convergence as cues to distance. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 11, 166–168.
Gregory, R. L. Visual illusions. In B. M. Foss (Ed.),New horizons in psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966. Pp. 68–96.
Hake, H. W. The constancy legends. Presidential address, Midwestern Psychological Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1970.
Heinemann, E. G., Tulving, E., & Nachmias, J. The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size. American Journal of Psychology, 1959, 72, 32–45.
Held, R. Dissociation of visual functions by deprivation and rearrangement. Psychologische Forschung, 1967, 31, 338–348.
Hering, E.Spatial sense and movements of the eye. (Trans. C. A. Radde) Baltimore: American Academy of Optometry, 1942.
Ittelson, W. H.Visual space perception. New York: Springer, 1960.
Kilpatrick, F. P., & Ittelson, W. H. The size-distance invariance hypothesis. Psychological Review, 1953, 60, 223–231.
Komoda, M. K. The nature of accommodation-convergence micropsia. Unpublished PhD thesis, York University, 1970.
Komoda, M. K., & Ono, H. Oculomotor adjustment and size-distance perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 15, 241–248.
Leibowitz, H. W., & Moore, D. Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1966, 8, 1120–1123.
Leibowitz, H. W., Shina, K., & Hennessy, R. T. Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 497–500.
McCready, D. W. Size-distance perception and accommodation-convergence micropsia—A critique. Vision Research, 1965, 5, 189–206.
Morgan, M. W. Accommodation and vergence. American Journal of Optometry and Archives of the American Academy of Optometry, 1968, 45, 417–454.
Ono, H. Some thoughts on different tasks related to size and distance. In J. C. Baird (Ed.), Human space perception. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1970, 3(13, Whole No. 45).
Roelofs, C. O. Considerations on the visual egocentre. Acta Psychologies 1959, 16, 226–234.
Von Kries, J. Notes. In H. von Helmholtz, Physiological optics. (Transl. J. P. C. Southall), Optical Society of America, 1925.
Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, 1954.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant A0296 from the Nationsl Research Council of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ono, H., Muter, P. & Mitson, L. Size-distance paradox with accommodative micropsia. Perception & Psychophysics 15, 301–307 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213948
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213948