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.