바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.23 No.2

Citation Share

양안크기지각에서 크기거리불변가설 검증

An Evaluation of the Size Distance Invariance Hypothesis and Binocular Size Perception

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2011, v.23 no.2, pp.239-255
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.2.004
김남균 (계명대학교)
김남균. (2011). 양안크기지각에서 크기거리불변가설 검증. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 23(2), 239-255, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.2.004

초록

지금까지 인간의 크기 지각 능력은 크기거리불변가설(size-distance invariance hypothesis; 이하 SDIH)에 의존하여 왔다. 하지만 많은 노력에도 불구하고, SDIH로 크기를 지각한다는 확정적인 증거는 발견되지 않고 있을 뿐 아니라, 심지어는 SDIH와 모순되는 증거마저 보고되고 있다. 이런 문제점을 해결하기 위해서, 본 연구에서는 양안시각의 기하학적 관계에 입각하여, 양안크기 단서를 도출하였다. 특히 이 단서의 도출에 거리정보를 배제시켰으며, 따라서 SDIH의 기각과 크기지각능력의 정확성은 이 단서의 효율성을 지지하는 증거로 간주될 것으로 예측하였다. 이런 가능성을 검증하기 위해서 실험을 실시하였으며, 실험은 Garner와 Morton (1969)과 Ashby와 Townsend(1986)의 제언에 따라 크기와 거리지각과정을 독립적으로 변화시킨 후, 각 지각과정에서 지각능력을 별도로 평가하는 방식으로 진행되었다. 자극은 교차부등(crossed disparity)으로 모니터에서 가상적으로 제시되었으며, 이 때 참가자들은 가상 물체의 크기와 거리를 각각 보고 하였다. 그 결과 두 지각과정에서 상이한 반응양상을 발견하였을 뿐 아니라, 두 지각의 수행능력을 상관분석, 변산계수분석, 위계적 중다 회귀분석을 시도한 결과 모두 SDIH와 상충된다는 사실을 발견하였다. 이런 결과는 크기와 거리지각과정이 상호의존적이 아니라 독립된 과정일 것이라는 가능성을 시사할 뿐 아니라, 특히 양안크기지각이 크기 단서에 의해서 이루어질 가능성을 함축하는 증거로 간주된다고 결론지었다.

keywords
양안크기지각, 거리지각, 크기거리불변가설, binocular size perception, distance perception, size distance invariance hypothesis

Abstract

For too long, size perception research has been guided by the size distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH). Although research to validate this hypothesis has been largely inconclusive, the hypothesis has endured, perhaps in part because alternative information sources for size perception were lacking. Here, I propose an alternative binocular information source for size perception. An experiment was conducted to assess the utility of the proposed information and at the same time the perceptual independence of size and distance perception. Participants viewed a virtual object stereoscopically then judged its size and distance. Results were consistent with the proposed model’s prediction but inconsistent with the SDIH. The present findings were construed as evidence against the SDIH as an account of size perception for the binocular visual system.

keywords
양안크기지각, 거리지각, 크기거리불변가설, binocular size perception, distance perception, size distance invariance hypothesis

참고문헌

1.

감기택, 한광희 (1999). 양안 부등 처리에 있어서 구별되는 두 시야 영역. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 11, 1-16.

2.

Amazeen, E. L. (1999). Perceptual independence of size and weight by dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 102-119.

3.

Ashby, F. G., & Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154-179.

4.

Baird, J. C., & Biersdorf, W. R. (1967). Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 161-166.

5.

Bingham, G. P., Crowell, J. A. & Todd, J. T. (2004). Distortions of distance and shape are not produced by a single continuous transformation of reach space. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 152-169.

6.

Brenner, E., & van Damme, W. J. M. (1998). Judging distance from ocular convergence. Vision Research, 38, 493-498.

7.

Collewijn, H., & Erkelens, C. J. (1990). Binocular eye movements and the perception of depth. In E. Kowler (Ed.), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes (pp. 213-261). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

8.

Epstein, W. (1995). The metatheoretical context. In W. Epstein, & S. Rogers, S. (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (pp.1-22). San Diego: Academic Press.

9.

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

10.

Foley, J. M. (1980). Binocular distance perception. Psychological Review, 87, 411-434.

11.

Garner, W. R., & Morton, J. (1969). Perceptual independence: Definitions, models, and experimental paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 233-259.

12.

Gillam, B. (1995). The perception of spatial layout from static optical information. In W. Epstein, & S. Rogers, S. (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (pp.23-67). San Diego: Academic Press.

13.

Gillam, B. (1998). Illusions at century’s end. In J. Hochberg (Ed.), Perception and cognition at century’s end (pp.95-136). San Diego: Academic Press.

14.

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

15.

Gogel, W. C., & Da Silva, J. A. (1987). Familiar size and the theory of off-sized perceptions. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 419-429.

16.

Haber, R. N., & Levin, C. A. (2001). The independence of size perception and distance perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1140-1152.

17.

Hatfield, G. (2002). Perception as unconscious inference. In D. Heyer, & R. Mausfeld (Eds.), Perception and the physical world: Psychological and philosophical issues in perception (pp. 115-143). West Sussex: Wiley.

18.

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

19.

Higashiyama, A. (1977). Perceived size and distance as a perceptual conflict between two processing modes. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 206-211.

20.

Higashiyama, A. (1984). The effects of familiar size on judgments of size and distance: An introduction of viewing attitude with spatial cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 305-312.

21.

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

22.

Kaufman, L. (1974). Sight and mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Kaufman, L., Vassiliades, V., Noble, R., Alexander, R., Kaufman, J., & Edlund, S. (2007). Perceptual distance and the moon illusion. Spatial Vision, 20, 155-175.

24.

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

25.

Mon-Williams, M., & Dijkerman, H. C. (1999). The use of vergence information in the programming of prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 128, 578-582.

26.

Mon-Williams, M., & Tresilian, J. R. (1999). The size-distance paradox is a cognitive phenomenon. Experimental Brain Research, 125, 578-582.

27.

Ono, H., Wade, N. J., & Lillakas, L. (2002). The pursuit of Leonardo’s constraint. Perception, 31, 83-102.

28.

Predebon, J. (1994). Perceived size of familiar objects and the theory of off-sized perceptions. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 238-247.

29.

Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

30.

Ross, H. E. (2003). Levels of processing in the size-distance paradox. In L. Harris, & M. Jenkin (Eds.), Levels of perception (pp.149-168). New York: Springer.

31.

Sedgwick, H. A. (1986). Space perception. In K. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp.1-57). New York: Wiley.

32.

Tresilian, J. R. (1999). Analysis of recent empirical challenges to an account of interceptive timing. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 515-528.

33.

Wade, N. J., Ono, H., & Lillakas, L. (2001). Leonardo da Vinci’s struggles with representations of reality, Leonardo, 34, 231-235.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책