The effect of object familiarity on the perception of size and distance

The perceived sizes and perceived distances of familiar objects were investigated in two experiments in which images of familiar objects were presented monocularly, one at a time, in an otherwise dark field of view. It was found that the angular size of the objects as well as their familiar size determined reported size. Reported distances were increasingly underestimated as a function of increasing simulated distances of the objects. The results are consistent with the conclusion that, as a function of the retinal size of the objects, the observer perceives the familiar objects as off-sized, and, that as a consequence of these off-sized perceptions, the observer's judgements of the object distances reflect inferential rather than perceptual processes.     

Relative distance judgments of familiar and unfamiliar objects viewed under representatively natural conditions

Carlson and Tassone (1971) reported that an object of familiar size viewed at an appreciable distance is perceived to be more distant than an unfamiliar object. Six experiments were designed to examine this effect. The results indicated that the effect is not dependent on Carlson and Tassone's method for assessing perceived relative distance; it occurs at some minimum viewing distance; it is unlikely to be caused by stimulus attributes confounded with the familiar versus unfamiliar size dichotomy; appears to be specific to judgments of the familiar object itself; and it does not occur if the familiar and unfamiliar objects have a common reference target. These findings are discussed with respect to the issue of whether familiar size influences perceived distance as distinct from influencing judgments of distance.     

Perceived size of familiar objects and the theory of off-sized perceptions

In three experiments, I examined the claim (Gogel, 1969; Gogel & Newton 1969)that familiar objects viewed under reduced stimulus conditions frequently appear to be off-sized (i.e., larger or smaller.than normal). In Experiments 1 and 2, I presented images ofdifferent familiar objects, one at a time, at distances of .1. and 2 m from the observers. The images were normal-, large-, or small-sized versions of familiar objects, and the observers judged the perceived size of each object rela.tive to its familiar normal size. In Experiment 3, I presented normal-, large-, and small-sized versions of thesame familiar object at physical distances of 1 and 2 m. The pattern of size results was similar across the three experiments. In general, normal-sized objects appeared normal to small-sized at the 1-mdistance and small-sized at the 2-mdistance; small-sized objects appeared small-sized at the 1-m distance and even smaller at the 2-m distance; and large-sized objects appeared normal- to large-sized at the 1-m distance and normal- to small-sized at the 2-m distance. The distance results of Experiment 3 indicated that familiar size was an effective determinant of reported distance. These results are consistent with Gogel’s theory of off-sized perceptions and, more generally, with the claim that familiar size is not an important determinant of perceived size.     

Spatial judgments of exocentric extents in an open-field situation: familiar versus unfamiliar size.

Carlson and Tassone (1971) found that an object of familiar size presented in an outdoor setting and viewed at an appreciable distance is judged to be more distant than an unfamiliar object. Three experiments examined whether object familiarity also affects spatial judgments of exocentric extents presented under conditions comparable to those of Carlson and Tassone's experiments. The markers of the extents were either familiar or unfamiliar objects. In Experiment 1, subjects reproduced the perceived extents of depth intervals by adjusting a comparison egocentric extent, and in Experiment 2, subjects also compared the relative depths of two equally long extents. In Experiment 3, the two equally long extents were presented in the subjects' frontoparallel plane, and the subjects reported which of these two extents appeared longer and farther away. The results of these experiments indicate that familiar size does not affect the perceived depths or lengths of exocentric extents viewed under naturalistic conditions.     

Spatial judgments of exocentric extents in an open-field situation: Familiar versus unfamiliar size

Carlson and Tassone (1971) found that an object of familiar size presented in an outdoor setting and viewed at an appreciable distance is judged to be more distant than an unfamiliar object. Three experiments examined whether object familiarity also affects spatial judgments of exocentric extents presented under conditions comparable to those of Carlson and Tassone’s experiments. The markers of the extents were either familiar or unfamiliar objects. In Experiment 1, subjects reproduced the perceived extents of depth intervals by adjusting a comparison egocentric extent, and in Experiment 2, subjects also compared the relative depths of two equally long extents. In Experiment 3, the two equally long extents were presented in the subjects’ frontoparallel plane, and the subjects reported which of these two extents appeared longer and farther away. The results of these experiments indicate that familiar size does not affect the perceived depths or lengths of exocentric extents viewed under naturalistic conditions.     

Adaptation in distance perception based on oculomotor cues

Accommodation and convergence primarily serve to adjust the eyes to the distance of the object viewed, but, once made, these oculomotor adjustments serve as cues for the object’s distance. Experiments are reported that show that the relation between oculomotor adjustments and the distances they signify can be changed by adaptation to glasses that cause alteration in the oculomotor adjustments with which objects are viewed. This changed relation manifested itself in marked alterations of size perception. Wearing, for 30 min, glasses that caused a change in accommodation and convergence corresponding to a smaller object distance and equivalent to 1.5 lens diopters caused subsequent mean size increases that ranged from 50% to 65%. Adaptation to glasses that changed oculomotor adjustments in the same amount but in the opposite direction resulted in decreases in perceived sizes that varied from 18% to 40%, dependent on the distance of the test object. These were the results of size estimates obtained before and after the adaptation period under conditions where only accommodation and convergence served as cues for distance. A newly developed test of size perception was also used, in which S adjusted the size of the projected image of an array of familiar objects on a screen until the size of the objects appeared normal. Again, such adjustments were made before and after the adaptation period, and size differences were obtained that were in the direction to be expected of adaptation and varied in amount between 12% and 33%, dependent on the distance of the screen. The reason for the different amounts of size change measured by the two kinds of tests was investigated.     

The nature of adaptation in distance perception based on oculomotor cues

In previous work by the senior authors, brief adaptation to glasses that changed the accommodation and convergence with which objects were seen resulted in large alterations in size perception. Here, two further effects of such adaptation are reported: alterations in stereoscopic depth perception and a change when distance is represented by a response of S’s arm. We believe that the three effects are manifestations of one primary effect, an alteration of the relation between accommodation and convergence on the one hand and the distance they represent in the nervous system (registered distance) on the other. This view was supported by the results of two experiments, each of which demonstrated that the alterations in stereoscopic depth perception could be obtained after adaptation periods which had provided no opportunity to use stereoscopic vision, and that the adaptation effect was larger for depth perception than for size perception when it was obtained under the same conditions; the latter finding was expected if both effects resulted from the same change in registered distance. In three of the five experiments here reported, the variety of cues that could represent veridical distance during the adaptation period was limited. In one condition of adaptation, only the pattern of growth of the retinal images of objects that S approached and the kinesthetic cues for S’s locomotion served as cues to veridical distance. In two other conditions S remained immobile. In one of these, only the perspective distortion in the projection of the scene that S viewed mediated veridical distance, and in the other one familiar objects of normal size were successively illuminated in an otherwise totally dark field, conditions from which opportunities to use stereoscopic vision were again absent. After exposure to each of these adaptation conditions, adaptive changes in perceived size and larger ones in perceived stereoscopic depth were obtained. Because we found that familiar size may serve as the sole indicator of veridical distance in an adaptation process, we concluded that it can function as a perceptual as distinguished from an inferential cue to distance.     

Size-distance perception in preschool children.

Children between three and six years of age matched the “apparent” and “real” size of familiar and unfamiliar objects 3, 6, or 9 feet away. Prior to the experimental sessions, the children were divided into two groups: (a) those who could distinguish the phenomenal from the real sizes of the arcs in the Jastrow illusion (the “Realists”) and (b) those who could not (the “Phenomenalists”). The results suggest that all children perceived size constancy up to distances of 9 feet solely on the basis of visual information.     

Failure of familiar size to determine a metric for visually perceived distance

The use of knowledge of the familiar sizes of objects in determining the apparent distances of those objects is known as the familiar size cue to distance. If effective, this cue might be one of the factors responsible for supplying the metric (scalar) characteristics of perceptions of spatial extent within a visual display in which other information concerning scalar extents has been reduced to a minimum. Two groups of observers were presented with realistic objects of the same angular, but different assumed, sizes presented in such a cue-restricted display. Perceptions of size and distance within the display did not differ significantly as a function of the type of object initially presented. This result was consistent with the notion that scalar perceptions under these conditions probably are determined by a factor known as the specific distance tendency, rather than by the experiential factor of familiar size.     

Visual angle and apparent size of objects in peripheral vision

Measurements of apparent size were obtained by distance adjustment of a peripherally viewed stimulus to produce a match to a foveally viewed standard. As eccentricity increased, the peripheral stimulus was adjusted at distances of progressively greater visual angle, indicating that a continuous diminution in apparent size occurs with increased eccentricity. This effect was found to be stable for several conditions of illumination and for changes in the light adaptive state of S. Apparent size diminution and apparent distance increase were also found for familiar objects viewed in an open field.     

A familiar-size Stroop effect: real-world size is an automatic property of object representation

When we recognize an object, do we automatically know how big it is in the world? We employed a Stroop-like paradigm, in which two familiar objects were presented at different visual sizes on the screen. Observers were faster to indicate which was bigger or smaller on the screen when the real-world size of the objects was congruent with the visual size than when it was incongruent--demonstrating a familiar-size Stroop effect. Critically, the real-world size of the objects was irrelevant for the task. This Stroop effect was also present when only one item was present at a congruent or incongruent visual size on the display. In contrast, no Stroop effect was observed for participants who simply learned a rule to categorize novel objects as big or small. These results show that people access the familiar size of objects without the intention of doing so, demonstrating that real-world size is an automatic property of object representation.     

Infants’ sensitivity to familiar size: The effect of memory on spatial perception

Two experiments investigated infants’ sensitivity to familiar size as information for the distances of objects with which they had had only brief experience. Each experiment had two phases: a familiarization phase and a test phase. During the familiarization phase, the infant played with a pair of different-sized objects for 10 min. During the test phase, a pair of objects, identical to those seen in the familiarization phase but now equal in size, were presented to the infant at a fixed distance under monocular or binocular viewing conditions. In the test phase of Experiment 1, 7-month-old infants viewing the objects monocularly showed a significant preference to reach for the object that resembled the smaller object in the familiarization phase. Seven-month-old infants in the binocular viewing condition reached equally to the two test phase objects. These results indicate that, in the monocular condition, the 7-month-olds used knowledge about the objects’ sizes, acquired during the familiarization phase, to perceive distance from the test objects’ visual angles, and that they reached preferentially for the apparently nearer object. The lack of a reaching preference in the binocular condition rules out interpretations of the results not based on the objects’ perceived distances. The results, therefore, indicate that 7-month-old infants can use memory to mediate spatial perception. The implications of this finding for the debate between direct and indirect theories of visual perception are discussed. In the test phase of Experiment 2,5-month-old infants viewing the objects monocularly showed no reaching preference. These infants, therefore, showed no evidence of sensitivity to familiar size as distance information.     

Why Barbie feels heavier than Ken: the influence of size-based expectancies and social cues on the illusory perception of weight

In order to examine the relative influence of size-based expectancies and social cues on the perceived weight of objects, two studies were performed, using equally weighing dolls differing in sex-related and age-related vulnerability or physical strength cues. To increase variation in perceived size, stimulus objects were viewed through optical lenses of varying reducing power. Different groups of participants were required to provide magnitude estimates of perceived size, physical strength, or weight, or of expected weight. A size-weight illusion (SWI) was demonstrated, such that smaller objects felt heavier than larger ones, that was entirely accounted for by the mediating role of expected weight. Yet, perceived physical strength exerted an additional and more reactive influence on perceived weight independently of measured expectancies. Results are used to clarify the nature of "embodied", internal sensory-motor representations of physical and social properties.     

An empirical test of formal equivalence between Emmert's law and the size-distance invariance hypothesis

Emmert's law and the size-distance invariance hypothesis have been said to be formally equivalent, provided that Emmert's law means that the perceived size of an afterimage is proportional to the perceived distance of the projected surface of the afterimage. However, there have been very few studies that have attempted to verify this formal equivalence empirically. We measured both the perceived size and distance of afterimages and real objects with the same proximal size. Nineteen participants projected afterimages of 1 deg in visual angle on the wall located at distances of 1 to 23 meters from the participants. They also observed real objects, disc-shaped and made from a sheet of Styrofoam board, with the same proximal size as that of the afterimages, which were located at the same physical distances as those of the wall on which the afterimages were projected. Each participant reproduced the apparent sizes of the afterimages and real objects using the reproduction method and estimated the apparent distances using the magnitude estimation method. When the mean apparent sizes of the afterimages and real objects, represented as a function of apparent distance, were fitted to a linear function, the slopes for the afterimages and real objects did not differ significantly. These results are interpreted as evidence for the formal equivalence of Emmert's law and the size-distance invariance hypothesis.     

Perceived size and distance as a perceptual conflict between two processing modes

Three different sized squares were successively presented at the same physical distance under three observational conditions which provided different information about distance in the visual field. The 60 observers in each observational condition were asked to give verbal absolute judgments of perceived size and perceived distance for each of the squares. The results showed that in a full-cue situation a ratio of perceived absolute sizes is equal to that of the corresponding visual angles, with perceived distances appearing equal to each other; in a reduced-cue situation an object of smaller perceived size is judged to be farther away than one of larger perceived size, with the observers tending to assume the two objects as the same object or identically sized objects. These results were analyzed in terms of the perceptual conflict between primary perception and secondary perception.     

Familiar eyes are smiling: on the role of familiarity in the perception of facial affect

Quickly and accurately perceiving others' facial affect is paramount for successful social interaction. This work investigates the role of familiarity in helping us to interpret others' facial emotions. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants viewed several faces, some familiar and some novel, and judged how happy each face appeared. As predicted, results showed that familiar faces were perceived as happier than were novel faces. In Experiment 3, participants again viewed several faces, some familiar and some not, and rated the perceived anger or happiness of these faces. As expected, familiar faces were perceived as happier and less angry than were novel faces. Thus, these results suggest that familiarity is one cue we use to interpret the facial affect of others. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Body-based perceptual rescaling revealed through the size-weight illusion

An embodied approach to the perception of spatial layout contends that the body is used as a 'perceptual ruler' with which individuals scale the perceived environmental layout. In support of this notion, previous research has shown that the perceived size of objects can be influenced by changes in the apparent size of hand. The size-weight illusion is a well known phenomenon, which occurs when people lift two objects of equal weight but differing sizes and perceive that the larger object feels lighter. Therefore, if apparent hand size influences perceived object size, it should also influence the object's perceived weight. In this study, we investigated this possibility by using perceived weight as a measure and found that changes in the apparent size of the hand influence objects' perceived weight.     

Event-related potential (ERP) indices of infants' recognition of familiar and unfamiliar objects in two and three dimensions

We measured infants' recognition of familiar and unfamiliar 3-D objects and their 2-D representations using event-related potentials (ERPs). Infants differentiated familiar from unfamiliar objects when viewing them in both two and three dimensions. However, differentiation between the familiar and novel objects occurred more quickly when infants viewed the object in 3-D than when they viewed 2-D representations. The results are discussed with respect to infants' recognition abilities and their understanding of real objects and representations. This is the first study using 3-D objects in conjunction with ERPs in infants, and it introduces an interesting new methodology for assessing infants' electrophysiological responses to real objects.     

Children's haptic and cross-modal recognition with familiar and unfamiliar objects

Five-year-old children explored multidimensional objects either haptically or visually and then were tested for recognition with target and distractor items in either the same or the alternative modality. In Experiments 1 and 2, haptic, visual, and cross-modal recognition were all nearly with familiar objects; haptic and visual recognition were also excellent with unfamiliar objects, but cross-modal recognition was less accurate. In Experiment 3, cross-modal recognition was also less accurate than within-mode recognition with familiar objects that were members of the same basic-level category. The results indicate that children's haptic recognition is remarkably good, that cross-modal recognition is otherwise constrained, and that cross-modal recognition may be accomplished differently for familiar and unfamiliar objects.     

Seeing big things: overestimation of heights is greater for real objects than for objects in pictures

In six experiments we demonstrate that the vertical-horizontal illusion that is evoked when viewing photographs and line drawings is relatively small, whereas the magnitude of this illusion when large objects are viewed is at least twice as great. Furthermore, we show that the illusion is due more to vertical overestimation than horizontal underestimation. The lack of a difference in vertical overestimation between pictures and line drawings suggests that vertical overestimation in pictures depends solely on the perceived physical size of the projection on the picture surface, rather than on what is apparent about an object's represented size. The vertical-horizontal illusion is influenced by perceived physical size. It is greater when viewing large objects than small pictures of these same objects, even when visual angles are equated.