Perceived distance, shape and size

AbstractIf distance, shape and size are judged independently from the retinal and extra-retinal information at hand, different kinds of information can be expected to dominate each judgement, so that errors in one judgement need not be consistent with errors in other judgements. In order to evaluate how independent these three judgements are, we examined how adding information that improves one judgement influences the others. Subjects adjusted the size and the global shape of a computer-simulated ellipsoid to match a tennis ball. They then indicated manually where they judged the simulated ball to be. Adding information about distance improved the three judgements in a consistent manner, demonstrating that a considerable part of the errors in all three judgements were due to misestimating the distance. Adding information about shape that is independent of distance improved subjects’ judgements of shape, but did not influence the set size or the manually indicated distance. Thus, subjects ignored conflicts between the cues when judging the shape, rather than using the conflicts to improve their estimate of the ellipsoid’s distance. We conclude that the judgements are quite independent, in the sense that no attempt is made to attain consistency, but that they do rely on some common measures, such as that of distance

Holding an object one is looking at:Kinesthetic information on the object's distance does not improve visual judgments of its size

Visual judgments of distance are often inaccurate. Nevertheless, information on distance must be procured if retinal image size is to be used to judge an object's dimensions. In the present study, we examined whether kinesthetic information about an object's distance - based on the posture of the arm and hand when holding it - influences the object's perceived size. Subjects were presented with a computer simulation of a cube. This cube's position was coupled to that of a rod in the subject's hand. Its size was varied between presentations. Subjects had to judge whether the cube they saw was larger than, smaller than, or the same size as a reference. On some presentations, a small difference was introduced between the positions of the rod and of the simulated cube. When the simulated cube was slightly closer than the rod, subjects judged the cube to be larger. When it was farther away, they judged it to be smaller. We show that these changes in perceived size are due to alterations in the cube's distance from the subject rather than to kinesthetic information