바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.23 No.2

Citation Share

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

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / 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

(2011). An Evaluation of the Size Distance Invariance Hypothesis and Binocular Size Perception. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 23(2), 239-255, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.2.004

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

Reference

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy