18&20. size & shape constancy Flashcards
Law of size constancy?
We tend to perceive an object to be a fixed size regardless of the distance to the object (i.e., regardless of the visual angle)
Holway & Boring experiment – what principle were they trying to test?
Law of size constancy –> can we account for distance when we perceive size?
Holway & Boring experiment – how was it set up?
- subjects sat at the corner of 2 hallways
- saw a test circle that changed in distance (10-120ft) and size, but was always 1 degree of visual angle & a comparison circle (10ft away)
Holway & Boring experiment – what did participants do?
- had to make the comparison circle the same size as the test circle
Holway & Boring experiment – results?
There is a linear relationship between the distance to test circle and the size of comparison circle
IE –> participants judged distance right and perceived size accurately
Holway & Boring experiment – (pt 2) what did they change? Why?
- got rid of all depth cues
- turned of lights –> gets rid of most cues
- look through peep hole
–> no binocular cues, no motion parallax - test if depth cues are the cause of size constancy
Holway & Boring experiment – (pt 2) –> results/ conclusion?
- “Law” of visual angle
- judgements of size (without any depth cues) are based only on visual angle
- NO size constancy –> graph is flat line
- size constancy can’t happen without depth cues!!
Why are the moon and sun perceived as approx. the same size? What “law” explains this?
- there is almost NO good depth information that far away in the sky/space
- Law of visual angle
–> both take up approx. the same visual angle, so we perceive them as the same size
Size-distance invariance def? What is it?
- Relationship!!
- the perceived size of an object DEPENDS ON its perceived distance, and vice versa.
Emmert’s Law def? What “object” does it involve? What depth property does it relate to?
Object: retinal after images!
Property: size-distance invariance
- perceived size of afterimage changes (proportionally) based on distance of surface its “projected” on
- if you look at a wall far away, afterimage is big
- look at a desk up close, after image is small
- shows that we take depth into account when perceiving object size
How does depth perception affect size constancy? (negatively)
- if we misperceive depth, we misperceive size
- we judge size based on depth
- causes “failures” of size constancy, or illusions
6 examples of “failures” of size constancy caused by misperceived depth? (illusions) (1 is sorta repeated)
- Ames room (2 versions)
- Moon illusion
- Ponzo illusion
- Ponzo variant with fMRI
- Muller - Lyer illusion
- Outside rear-view mirror illusion
Ames room –> what happens? why do we misperceive depth? What are the results?
- objects look like they’re all the same distance, leading to misperception of relative size
- depth cues eliminated through peep hole
- all “rectangular” shapes are actually trapezoidal, so its angled back but you perceive it as perpendicular to you
- you think objects on the left side are much smaller than objects on the right side
Ames room –> difference between version 1 and version 2?
Version 1:
- DIFF. retinal size
- same apparent distance
- kid looks small on one side, huge on other
Version 2:
- SAME retinal size
- same apparent distance
- mom looks same size as kids
Moon illusion –> what happens? best explanation for why?
- moon appears much bigger at horizon than peak
- perceive distance at horizon to be much bigger
- very difficult to study and prove, so we still don’t know for sure