Abstract
The relationship between perceived size and distance and oculomotor adjustments were assessed in two experiments. In both experiments, Ss were required to make scalar linear size, angular size, and distance judgments of stimuli subtending a constant retinal image size at different levels of convergence. The results of the first experiment indicate that the perceived linear size, angular size, and distance of the stimulus decreased with increased convergence, the decrease in perceived linear size being greater than that of perceived angular size. While again showing a decrease in perceived linear and angular size, the results of the second experiment also show that there was a smaller decrease in perceived distance with increased convergence when Ss continued to view the stimulus as convergence was changed than when they did not view the stimulus as convergence was changed. The implications these results have for size and distance perception are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biersdorf, W. R. Convergence and apparent distance as correlates of size judgments at near distances. Journal of General Psychology, 1066, 75, 249–264.
Biersdorf, W. R., &Baird, J. C. Effects of an artificial pupil and accommodation on retinal image size. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1966, 56, 1123–1129.
Epstein, W. The known size apparent distance hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 1061, 74, 333–346.
Epstein, W.Varieties of perceptual learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Epstein, W., Park, J., &Casey, A. The current status of the size-distance hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 1961, 58, 491–514.
Foley, J. M. Disparity increase with convergence for constant perceptual criteria. Perception & Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 605–608.
Funaishi, S. Über das Zentrum der Sehrichtungen. Albrecht yon Graefes Archly für Ophthalmologie, 1926, 117, 269–303.
Gogel, W. C. Convergence as a determiner of perceived absolute size. Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 91–104.
Gogel, W. C. The measurement of perceived size and distance. In W. D. Neff (Ed.),Contributions to sensory physiology. Vol. 3. New York: Wiley, 1968. Pp. 125–148.
Gogel, W. C., Hartman, B. O., & Harker, G. S. The retinal size of a familiar object as a determiner of apparent distance. Psychological Monographs, 1957, 71(13, Whole No. 442).
Graham, C. H. Visual space perception. In C. H. Graham (Ed.),Vision and visual perception. New York: Wiley, 1965. Pp. 181–188.
Heinemann, E. G., Tulving, E., &Nachmias, J. The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size. American Journal of Psychology, 1959, 72, 32–45.
Hermans, T. G. The relationship of convergence and elevation changes to judgments of size. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 48,204–208.
Hochberg, C. B., &Hochberg, J. E. Familair size and the perception of depth. Journal of Psychology, 1952, 34, 107–114.
Hochberg, C. B., &McAlister, E. Relative size vs familar size in the perception of represented depth. American Journal of Psychology, 1955, 68,249–246.
Jenkin, N., &Hyman, R. Attitude and distance-estimation as variables in size-matching. American Journal of Psychology, 1959, 72, 68–76.
Joynson, R. B. The problem of size and distance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1948, 1, 119–135.
Kilpatrick, F. P., &Ittelson, W. H. The size-distance invariance hypothesis. Psychological Review, 1953, 60, 223–231.
Komoda, M. K. The nature of accommodation-convergence micropsia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University, 1970.
Leibowitz, H., &Moore, D. Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1966, 56, 1120–1123.
Leibowitz, H. W., Shiina, K., &Hennessy, R. T. Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 497–500.
McCready, D. W., Jr. Size-distance perception and accommodation convergence micropsia—A critique. Vision Research, 1965, 5,189–206.
Ogle, K. N. Perception of distance and size. In H. Davson (Ed.),The eye. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1962. Pp. 247–269.
Ono, H. Distal and proximal size under reduced and non,educed viewing conditions American Journal of Psychology, 1966, 79, 234–241.
Ono, H. Apparent distance as a function of familiar size. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, 109–115.
Ono, H. Some thoughts on different perceptual tasks related to size and distance. In J. C. Baird (Ed.),Human space perception: Proceedings of the Dartmouth Conference. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1970, 3(13, Whole No. 45), pp143-151.
Osgood, C. E.Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford Umversity Press, 1953.
Rock, I., &McDermott, W. The perception of visual angle. Acta Psychologica, 1964, 22, 119–134.
Roelofs, C. Considerations on the visual egocenter. Acta Psychologica, 1959, 16, 226–234.
Schlosberg, H. A. A note on depth perception, size constancy, and related topics. Psychological Review, 1050, 57, 314–317.
WaIlach, H., &Zuckerman, C. The constancy of stereoscopic depth. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 404–412.
Wheatstone, C. Contributions to the physiology of vision, Part II. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London), 1852, Part 2, 1-17.
Woodworth, R. S., &Schlosberg, H.Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, 1954.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant A0296 from the National Research Council of Canada awarded to the second author. Experiment I is based on a dissertation submitted by the first author to the Department of Psychology, York University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Komoda, M.K., Ono, H. Oculomotor adjustments and size-distance perception. Perception & Psychophysics 15, 353–360 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213958
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213958