Independence of Size and Distance in Binocular Vision

Can People Infer Distance in a 2D Scene Using the Visual Size and Position of an Object?

Depth information is limited in a 2D scene and for people to perceive the distance of an object, they need to rely on pictorial cues such as perspective, size constancy and elevation in the scene. In this study, we tested whether people could use an object’s size and its position in a 2D image to determine its distance. In a series of online experiments, participants viewed a target representing their smartphone rendered within a 2D scene. They either positioned it in the scene at the distance they thought was correct based on its size or adjusted the target to the correct size based on its position in the scene. In all experiments, the adjusted target size and positions were not consistent with their initially presented positions and sizes and were made larger and moved further away on average. Familiar objects influenced adjusted position from size but not adjusted size from position. These results suggest that in a 2D scene, (1) people cannot use an object’s visual size and position relative to the horizon to infer distance reliably and (2) familiar objects in the scene affect perceived size and distance differently. The differences found demonstrate that size and distance perception processes may be independent.

The relationship between the body and the environment in the virtual world: The interpupillary distance affects the body size perception

Previous research suggests that the size of one's body is used as a metric to scale the external world. On the other hand, the influence of information from the external world on the perception of body size is unclear. It has been suggested that increased inter-pupillary distance (IPD) leads people to perceive the external world as smaller than it actually is. The present study investigated the effect of the IPD on body size perception, and the relationship between the perceived scale of the body and the external world when the IPD is manipulated. To this end, in a virtual environment, we manipulated the IPD as well as the size and presence of participants' hands, while participant's eye height was increased vertically. Results showed that, when participants' eye height was increased and their hands were enlarged, people with a fixed IPD perceived the size of their body to be large (like a giant) while the external world was perceived to be changed minimally. Alternatively, people with increased IPD perceived that the external world as having shrank, whereas their perception of their body size changed little. However, when a viewers' virtual hands were not shown, the IPD did not affect the individual's percept of body size, although the IPD did affect one's perception of the external world. These results suggest that, when the ratio of the size between one's body and the external world are explicit, the perceived size of one's body is affected by the IPD or perceived scale of the external world that is affected by the IPD.

Visual and somatosensory information contribute to distortions of the body model

Distorted representations of the body are observed in healthy individuals as well as in neurological and psychiatric disorders. Distortions of the body model have been attributed to the somatotopic cerebral representation. Recently, it has been demonstrated that visual biases also contribute to those distortions. To better understand the sources of such distortions, we compared the metric representations across five body parts affording different degrees of tactile sensitivity and visual accessibility. We evaluated their perceived dimensions using a Line Length Judgment task. We found that most body parts were underestimated in their dimensions. The estimation error relative to their length was predicted by their tactile acuity, supporting the influence of the cortical somatotopy on the body model. However, tactile acuity did not explain the distortions observed for the width. Visual accessibility in turn does appear to mediate body distortions, as we observed that the dimensions of the dorsal portion of the neck were the only ones accurately perceived. Coherent with the multisensory nature of body representations, we argue that the perceived dimensions of body parts are estimated by integrating visual and somatosensory information, each weighted differently, based on their availability for a given body part and a given spatial dimension.