Abstract
When full depth cues are available, size judgments are dominated by physical size. However, with reduced depth cues, size judgments are influenced less by physical size and more by projected size. By manipulating monocularly presented pictorial depth cues only, in this study we reduced depth cues further than had previous size judgment studies. Participants were presented monocularly with two shapes against a background of zero (control), one, two, or three pictorial depth cues. Each cue was added progressively in the following order: height in the visual field, linear perspective, and texture gradient. Participants made a same/different judgment regarding the projected size of the two shapes (i.e., ignoring any depth cues). As was expected, accuracy increased and response times decreased as the ratio between the projected size of the two shapes increased (range of projected size ratios, 1:1-1:5). In addition, with the exception of the larger size ratios (1:4 and 1:5), detection of projected size difference grew poorer as depth cues were added. One- and two-cue conditions had the most weighting in this performance decrement, with little weighting from the three-cue condition. We conclude that even minimal depth information is difficult to inhibit, which indicates that depth perception requires little focused attention.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aks, D. J., & Enns, J. T. (1992). Visual search for direction of shading is influenced by apparent depth. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 63–74.
Aks, D. J., & Enns, J. T. (1996). Visual search for size is influenced by a background texture gradient. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 1467–1481.
Bennett, D. J., & Warren, W. (2002). Size scaling: Retinal or environmental frame of reference? Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 462–477.
Bradshaw, M. F., Glennerster, A., & Rogers, B. J. (1996). The effect of display size on disparity scaling from differential perspective and vergence cues. Vision Research, 36, 1255–1264.
Bundesen, C., & Larsen, A. (1975). Visual transformation of size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1, 214–220.
Cutting, J. E., & Vishton, P. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Vol. 5. Perception of space and motion (pp. 69–117). San Diego: Academic Press.
dellaPorta, G. (1593). De refractione optices parte: Libri nouem. Naples: Iacobum Carlinum & Antonium Pacem.
Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (1991). Preattentive recovery of threedimensional orientation from line drawings. Psychological Review, 98, 335–351.
Epstein, W. (1973). The process of “taking-into-account” in visual perception. Perception, 2, 267–285.
Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429–433.
Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gillam, B. (1995). The perception of spatial layout from static optical information. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Vol. 5. Perception of space and motion (pp. 23–67). San Diego: Academic Press.
Hillis, J. M., Watt, S. J., Landy, M. S., & Banks, M. S. (2004). Slant from texture and disparity cues: Optimal cue combination. Journal of Vision, 4, 967–992.
Howard, J. H., & Kerst, S. M. (1978). Directional effects of size change on the comparison of visual shapes. American Journal of Psychology, 91, 491–499.
Jolicoeur, P., & Besner, D. (1987). Additivity and interaction between size ratio and response category in the comparison of size-discrepant shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 478–487.
Miles, W. R. (1930). Ocular dominance in human adults. Journal of General Psychology, 3, 412–430.
Roth, H. L., Lora, A. N., & Heilman, K. M. (2002). Effects of monocular viewing and eye dominance on spatial attention. Brain, 125, 2023–2035.
Sedgwick, H. A. (1973). The visible horizon: A potential source of visual information for the perception of size and distance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 1301B-1302B (UMI No. 73-22, 530).
Sedgwick, H. A. (1986). Space perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 1. Sensory processes and perception (pp. 21.1–21.57). New York: Wiley.
Treisman, A. (1986). Properties, parts, and objects. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 35.1–35.70). New York: Wiley.
Uhlarik, J., Pringle, R., Jordan, K., & Misceo, G. (1980). Size scaling in two-dimensional pictorial arrays. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 60–70.
Wallach, H., & O'Leary, A. (1982). Slope of regard as a distance cue. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 145–148.
Wraga, M. (1999). The role of eye height in perceiving affordances and object dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 490–507.
Yonas, A., & Hagen, M. (1973). Effects of static and motion parallax depth information on perception of size in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15, 254–265.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Note—Accepted by the previous editorial team. when Thomas H. Carr was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Farran, E.K., Whitaker, A. & Patel, N. The effect of pictorial depth information on projected size judgments. Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 207–214 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.1.207
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.1.207