The independence of size perception and distance perception

Research on distance perception has focused on environmental sources of information, which have been well documented; in contrast, size perception research has focused on familiarity or has relied on distance information. An analysis of these two parallel bodies of work reveals their lack of equivalence. Furthermore, definitions of familiarity need environmental grounding, specifically concerning the amount of size variation among different tokens of an object. To demonstrate the independence of size and distance perception, subjects in two experiments were asked to estimate the sizes of common objects from memory and then to estimate both the sizes and the distances of a subset of such objects displayed in front of them. The experiments found that token variation was a critical variable in the accuracy of size estimations, whether from memory or with vision, and that distance had no impact at all on size perception. Furthermore, when distance information was good, size had no effect on distance estimation; in contrast, at far distances, the distances to token variable or unknown objects were estimated with less accuracy. The results suggest that size perception has been misconceptualized, so that the relevant research to understand its properties has not been undertaken. The size-distance invariance hypothesis was shown to be inadequate for both areas of research.

Visual angle as a determinant of perceived interobject distance

Two new experiments and a reanalysis of Toye's (1986) data are used to examine the relationship between true distance and perceived distance in natural scenes. In the first experiment, 8 subjects estimated 78 interobject distances, formed by all pairs of 13 objects, while viewing the objects from a fixed position. The results showed that estimated distance is a linear function of the visual angle between objects as well as of the true distance. This relationship results in distances perpendicular to the line of sight being overestimated in relation to true distances and to distances parallel to the line of sight. These findings were confirmed by reanalysis of a comparable data set from Toye. Since changes in the visual angle can come about through changes in alignment with the line of sight, viewing distance, or interobject distance, Experiment 2 was designed to determine whether the visual angle effect was due to one of these, or whether it was an independent effect. In Experiment 2, 8 subjects estimated six interobject distances from 12 viewing positions. The results showed that visual angle predicted estimated distance independently of how the change in visual angle came about, suggesting that the greater the visual angle between objects, the more their separation is overestimated.

Properties of spatial representations: data from sighted and blind subjects

Five questions concerning the properties of spatial representations are explored. (1) How accurately does a spatial representation correspond to the true scene? (2) If inaccurate, how does it differ? (3) Are representations of a familiar scene more accurate than those of an unfamiliar one? (4) Do representations of a scene currently in view differ from those retained in memory? (5) Do the representations of the blind have properties comparable to those of the sighted? Seven sighted and 7 highly mobile blind subjects, all familiar with a room, and 6 sighted subjects unfamiliar with it, were asked to estimate the absolute distances between 10 salient objects in the room. The 14 familiar subjects made their estimates twice: while they were in the room, and while they were remote from it. Regression analyses showed that the estimates of all subjects had strong metric properties, being linearly related to true distance, with a true zero point; and multidimensional scaling showed that all subjects produced distance estimates that could be scaled in two dimensions to closely match the actual locations of the objects. Familiarity had no effect. The effect of location of testing was the same for both the sighted and the blind: all subjects displayed better spatial knowledge when tested in the room; and all subjects underestimated true distance substantially when tested out of the room. The results showed no qualitative differences as a function of blindness, at least for these highly skilled blind travelers.

Comparison of nine methods of indicating the direction to objects: data from blind adults

Nine methods of indicating the direction to object locations were tested on twenty blind adult subjects. The task was to indicate the location of active auditory targets distributed in a semicircle with a 1.7 m radius around the subject. Target location, practice, and feedback were systematically varied for each method. The greatest accuracy and lowest variability were found for pointing methods that used body parts (directing the nose at the target, facing it with the chest, and pointing with the index finger) and extensions of body parts (pointing with a hand-held cane or with a short stick). Two less accurate methods involved rotating a dial. The least accurate methods involved drawing and a verbal description in terms of clockface labels. Method interacted significantly with target location, and with individual differences. In general, the body-part and extension method were affected less than other methods by target location and individual differences. The findings suggest that a pointing response that uses body part or an extension of a body part is the best choice for experimental or diagnostic measurement of object location by blind subjects. Differences between the results of this study of blind subjects and auditory localization accuracy in sighted subjects are discussed, and the implications for spatial processing in the blind are considered.

Memory for pictograms, pictures, and words separately and all mixed up

Pictograms were created in which the outline of a work denoting an object was shaped to be the same as the object itself. A number of objects were presented, some drawn as pictograms, some as outline shapes, and some as normally printed words. The experiment was designed to test if recognition memory was superior for the pictograms as compared to outline pictures or words, and if this would be true whether the subjects were asked to attend to the form or only the content of the stimuli. One group of subjects was trained to respond OLD only if the test item was the same object in the same form, and NEW only to objects never before shown in any form. Recognition accuracy (a signal detection analysis) was greatest for the pictograms, and poorest for the words in both groups. Though the subjects could disregard form, they were most accurate when probed with the same form as presented. But in all comparisons subjects were most accurate when forced to recall both the form and the content. These and other results were taken to be mildly supportive of a dual coding hypothesis, and of the utility of these new stimuli.

Direct measures of short-term visual storage

Two experiments, involving seven conditions, explored the use of direct measures of visual persistence. In each, the subject was asked to judge if an intermittent stimulus appeared perceptually continuous, or whether it completely faded before the next presentation occurred. The first experiment showed that visual persistence was set at approximately 250 msec. for a recycling presentation of a circle in a tachistoscope; in another task employing a moving opaque slit passing back and forth over a circle, persistence times averaged 50 msec. longer. Reducing luminance by 2 log units increased persistence only slightly, though removing the adapting field increased it by over 100 msec. The second experiment, using the repeating circle, varied the duration of the stimulus, and compared monoptic with dichoptic presentations. Visual persistence was found to be independent of stimulus duration over a range of 4 to 200 msec., where all durations were above recognition threshold for the stimulus. Persistence was unaffected whether the stimulus was repeatedly presented in the same eye or alternated between eyes, strongly suggesting that the storage is central. Finally, a re-analysis of Dodwell and Engel's paper on stereopsis suggests that their effects can be adequately explained by visual persistence of the asynchronous stereo pairs, rather than a more complex fusion model. All of these results strongly support the use of visual persistence as a direct measure of short-term visual storage.