Abstract
The research investigated the perceived motion in depth resulting from the optical expansion or contraction of objects. A theoretical analysis of this cue was made in terms of the size-distance invariance hypothesis. For presenting stimuli, a computer simulation was developed which simulated the physical motion in depth of a constant-sized object at a constant velocity. A series of experiments showed that the extent of perceived motion in depth did not relate to the change in perceived stimulus size as predicted by the size-distance invariance hypothesis. Instead, substantial perceptions of depth motion occurred even though the ratio of the terminal perceived sizes was similar to the ratio of the terminal visual angles. Extending past research, a theoretical account based on the existence of two distinct processes involved in responding to size and distance was applied successfully. One process expressed by the size-distance invariance hypothesis determines the response to immediate, sensorily specified information. The second process involves the effect of size remembered from a previous perception (off-sized judgments) upon the response to distance. As determined by measurement obtained from using the head motion procedure, this remembered (representational) size, as it occurs in successive instants of the optical expansion pattern, can be translated by the visual system into a robust perception of distance.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Carlson, V. R. (1960). Overestimation in size constancy judgments.American Journal of Psychology,73, 199–213.
Carlson, V. R., &Tassone, E. P. (1962). A verbal measure of perceptual attitude.American Journal of Psychology,75, 644–647.
Emmerx, E. (1881). Grossenverhaltnisse der Nachbilder.Klinische Monatsblatt fiir Augenheilkunde,19, 443–450.
Gibson, J. J. (1958). Visually controlled locomotion and visual orientation in animals.British Journal of Psychology,49, 182–194.
Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston. Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson, J. J., Olum, P., &Rosenblatt, F. (1955). Parallax and perspective during aircraft landings.American Journal of Psychology,68, 372–385.
Gilinsky, A. S. (1951). Perceived size and distance in visual space.Psychological Review,58, 460–480.
Gillam, B. (1980, January). Geometrical illusions.Scientific American,242, 101–111.
Gogel, W. C. (1965). The equidistance tendency and its consequences.Psychological Bulletin,70, 289–293.
Gogel, W. C. (1969). The sensing of retinal size.Vision Research,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. (1974). Cognitive factors in spatial response.Psychologia,17, 213–225.
Gogel, W. C. (1976). An redirect method of measuring perceived distance from familiar size.Perception & Psychophysics,20, 419–429.
Gogel, W C. (1981). The role of suggested size ~n distance responses.Perceptton & Psychophysics,30. 149–155.
Gogel, W. C. (1982). Analysis of the perception of motion concomitant with a lateral motion of the head.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 241–250.
Gogel, W. C. (1984) The role of perceptual interrelations in figural synthesis, In P. C. Dodwell & T. Caelh (Eds.),Figural synthesis (pp 31–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gogel, W. C., Loomis, J. M., Newman, N. J., &Sharkey, T J. (1985) Agreement between indirect measures of perceived distancePerception & Psychophysics,37, 17–27.
Gogel, W C., &Sturm, R D. (1971). Directional separation and the size cue to distance.Psychologische Forschung,35, 57–80.
Gogel, W C., &Tietz, J D. (1973). Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency.Perception & Psychophysics,13, 284–292
Granrud, C E., Haake, R J., &Yonas, A. (1985). Infants’ sensitivity to familiar size: The effect of memory on spatial perceptionPerception & Psychophysics,37, 459–466.
Higashiyama, A. (1977). Perceived size and distance as a perceptual conflict between two processing modes.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 206–211
Higashiyama, A. (1979). The perception of size and distance under monocular observation.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 230–234
Higashiyama, A. (1983). A variety of size and distance judgments under monocular observation: Instructions and individual differences.Human Science (The University of Osaka Prefecture, The Human Sciences Society),13–14, 91–111.
Irwin, R. J. (1969). Emmert’s law as a consequence of size constancy.Perceptual & Motor Skills,28, 69–70.
Ittelson, W H. (1951). Size as a cue to distance: Radial motion.American Journal of Psychology,64, 188–202.
Johansson, G. (1964). Perception of motion and changing form.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,5, 181–208.
Kilpatrick, F. P., &Ittelson, W. H. (1953). The size-distance invariance hypothesis.Psychological Review,60, 223–231.
King, W. L., &Gruber, H. E. (1962). Moon illusion and Emmert’s law.Science,135, 1125–1126.
Lee, D. N. (1980). The optic flow field: The foundation of visionPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society(B),290, 169–179.
MacCracren, P. J., Gogel, W. C., &Blum, G. S. (1980). Effects of posthypnotic suggestion on perceived egocentric distance.Perception,9, 561–568.
Marmolin, H. (1973a). Visually perceived motion in depth resulting from proximal changes. I.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 133–142.
Marmolin, H. (1973b). Visually perceived motion in depth resulting from proximal changes, l].Perception & Psychophysics,14, 143–148.
Nakayama, K., &Loomis, J. M. (1974). Optical velocity patterns, velocity-sensitive neurons, and space perception: A hypothesis.Perception,3, 63–80.
Noguchi, K., &Taya, K. (1981). A neglected problem: Kinetic size constancy.Acta Psychologica,48, 187–194.
Price, G R. (1961) An Emmert’s law of apparent sizes.Psychological Record,11, 145–151
Regan, D., &Beverley, K. I. (1978). Looming detectors in the human visual pathway.Vision Research,18, 415–421.
Schiff, W. (1965). The perception of impending collision; A study of visually directed avoidant behavior.Psychological Monographs,79(1l, Whole No 604).
Schlosberg, H. (1950). A note on depth perception, size constancy, and related topics.Psychological Review,57, 314–317.
Swanston, M. Z., &Wade, N. J. (1984). Illusions of size change in dynamic displays.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 286–290.
Weintraub, D J., &Gardner, G. T. (1970). Emmert’s laws. Size constancy versus optical geometry.American Journal of Psychology,83, 40–54.
Wheatstone, C. (1852). Contributions to the physiology of vision—Part the second. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,142, 1–17.
Yonas, A., &Granrld, C E. (1985). Development of visual space perception in young infants In J Mehler & R. Fox (Eds.),Neonate cognition. Beyond the blooming buzzing confusion Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yonas, A, Pettersen, L., &Granrud, C E. (1982). Infants’ sensitivity to familiar size as information for distance.Child Development,53,. 1285–1290.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research, completed at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was supported jointly by the United States Public Health Service Grant MH 39457 from the National Institute of Mental Health to Walter C. Gogel and by the International Research Fellowship Program, Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Fellowship 1 F05TW03515-01 to Michael T. Swanston, with Walter C. Gogel, Sponsor. Both authors are equally responsible for the research and preparation of the paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Swanston, M.T., Gogel, W.C. Perceived size and motion in depth from optical expansion. Perception & Psychophysics 39, 309–326 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202998
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202998