EFFECTS OF THE SIZE AND TEXTURE OF BACKGROUND UPON SIZE CONSTANCY

KAORU NOGUCHI

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.11.198

KAORU NOGUCHI

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1969 Volume 11 Issue 4 Pages 198-207

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.11.198

[Correction] Jpn. Psychol. Res Vol.12 No.1 (1970) pp.e1-e1

Details

Published: 1969 Received: January 13, 1970 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : The problem was studied in terms of the system of reference: (1) the per-ceived size of an object decreased as the physical size of background increased; (2) the perceived distance also varied inversely with the physical size of back-ground; (3) if the standard and comparison backgrounds at different distances subtended an equal visual angle the degree of size constancy was rather low whereas it was relatively high when the both backgrounds were equal in phy-sical size; (4) the texture density (density of regularly distributed outline circles) of background affected size constancy though in a less degree than did the size of background. Concluded was that size constancy can be explained in terms of transformations in the system of reference which correspond to changes either in the distance of object or in the size and texture of background.
Right : The problem was studied in terms of the system of reference: (1) the perceived size of an object decreased as the physical size of background increased; (2) the perceived distance also varied inversely with the physical size of background; (3) if the standard and comparison backgrounds at different distances subtended an equal visual angle the degree of size constancy was rather low whereas it was relatively high when the both backgrounds were equal in physical size; (4) the texture density (density of regularly distributed outline circles) of background affected size constancy though in a less degree than did the size of background. Concluded was that size constancy can be explained in terms of transformations in the system of reference which correspond to changes either in the distance of object or in the size and texture of background.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : BAIRED, J. C. 1968 Toward a theory of frontalsize judgments. Percept. & Psychophys., 4, 49-53.
BLESSING, W. W., LANDAUER, A. A., & COLTHEART, M. 1967 The effect of false perspective cues on distance- and size- judgments: An examination of the invariance hypothesis. Amer. J. Psychol., 80, 250-256.
ENGEL, G., & PARDUCCI, A. 1961 Value of background in the specification of the stimulus for judgment. Amer. J. Psychol., 74, 569-575.
GIBSON, J. J. 1950 The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
GIBSON, J. J. 1959 Perception as a function of stimulation. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, Pp. 456-501.
GOGEL, W. C. 1963 The visual perception of size and distance. Vision Res., 3, 101-120.
GUILFORD, J. P. 1936 Psychometric methods. (Ist ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
HASTORF, A. H., & WAY, K. W. 1952 Apparent size with and without distance cues. J. gen. Psychol., 47, 181-188.
HELSON, H. 1964 Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.
HELSON, H., & BEVAN, W. 1964 An investigation of variables in judgments of relative area. J. exp. Psychol., 67, 335-341.
HOLADAY, B. 1933 Die grössen Konstanz der Sehdinge bei Variationen der inneren and ausseren Wahrnehmungsbedeingungen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 88, 419-486.
HOLWAY, A. H., & BORING, E. G. 1941 Determinants of apparent visual size with distant variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 54, 21-37.
ITTELSON, W. H. 1951 The constancies in perceptual theory. Psychol. Rev., 58, 285-294.
ITTELSON, W. H. 1952 The Ames demonstrations in perception. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
KUME, K. 1952a On the relation between perceived size and viewing distance with some consideration of factors determining size constancy. I. Jap. J. Psychol., 22, 235-244.
KUME, K. 1952b On the relation between perceived size and viewing distance with some consideration of factors determining size constancy. II. Jap. J. Psychol., 23, 32-43.
KURODA, T. 1961 Experimental studies on size constancy. In Y. Akishige (Ed.), Experimental researches on the structure of the perceptual space. IV. Bull. Fac. Lit. Kyushu Univ., 7, 59-102.
KÜNNAPAS, T. M. 1955 Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. J. exp. Psychol., 50, 168-170.
MAKINO, T. 1955 The problem of ‘comparison’ as a determinant of ‘size constancy.’ Jinbun Kenkyu (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univ.), 6, 129-144.
MAKING, T. 1956 The problem of perceived size and distance. Jinbun Kenkyu (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univ.), 7, 15-30.
MAKINO, T., & UENO, T. 1963 Methodological studies of size constancy (1): Size constancy measured by two experimental methods. Jap. psychol. Res., 5, 91-102.
MAKING, T., & Ueno, T. 1964 Methodological studies of size constancy (2): Gradient of visual field as a determinant of size constancy. Jap. psychol. Res., 6, 136-144.
METZGER, W. 1954 Psychologie. (2 Aufl.) Darmstadt: Steinkopff.
MORINAGA, S., & NOGUCHI, K. 1966 The perceptual constancy and the system of reference. Psychol. Forsch., 29, 149-160.
MORINAGA, S., NAKAJIMA, S., YAMADA, K., & Nocucxl, K. 1958 Experimental studies on systems of reference in perception. Proceedings of 22nd Annual Meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association.
OVER, R. 1963 Size-and distance-estimates of a single stimulus under different viewing conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 76, 452-457.
ROCK, I., & EBENHOLTZ 1959 The relational determination of perceived size. Psychol. Rev., 66, 387-401.
WITTE, W. 1960 Experimentelle Untersuchung-en von Bezugssystemen: I. Struktur, Dynamik and Genese von Bezugssystemen. Psychol. Beitr., 4, 218-252.

Right : BAIRED, J. C. 1968 Toward a theory of frontalsize judgments. Percept. & Psychophys., 4, 49-53.
BLESSING, W. W., LANDAUER, A. A., & COLTHEART, M. 1967 The effect of false perspective cues on distance and size judgments: An examination of the invariance hypothesis. Amer. J. Psychol., 80, 250-256.
ENGEL, G., & PARDUCCI, A. 1961 Value of background in the specification of the stimulus for judgment. Amer. J. Psychol., 74, 569-575.
GIBSON, J. J. 1950 The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
GIBSON, J. J. 1959 Perception as a function of stimulation. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol.1. New York: McGraw-Hill, Pp.456-501.
GOGEL, W. C. 1963 The visual perception of size and distance. Vision Res., 3, 101-120.
GUILFORD, J. P. 1936 Psychometric methods.(1st ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
HASTORF, A. H., & WAY, K. W. 1952 Apparent size with and without distance cues. J. gen. Psychol., 47, 181-188.
HELSON, H. 1964 Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.
HELSON, H., & BEVAN, W. 1964 An investigation of variables in judgments of relative area. J. exp. Psychol., 67, 335-341.
HOLADAY, B. 1933 Die grössen Konstanz der Sehdinge bei Variationen der inneren and ausseren Wahrnehmungsbedeingungen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 88, 419-486.
HOLWAY, A. H., & BORING, E. G. 1941 Determinants of apparent visual size with distant variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 54, 21-37.
ITTELSON, W. H. 1951 The constancies in perceptual theory. Psychol. Rev., 58, 285-294.
ITTELSON, W. H. 1952 The Ames demonstrations in perception. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
KUME, K. 1952a On the relation between perceived size and viewing distance with some consideration of factors determining size constancy. I. Jap. J. Psychol., 22, 235-244.
KUME, K. 1952b On the relation between perceived size and viewing distance with some consideration of factors determining size constancy. II. Jap. J. Psychol., 23, 32-43.
KURODA, T. 1961 Experimental studies on size constancy. In Y. Akishige (Ed.), Experimental researches on the structure of the perceptual space. IV. Bull. Fac. Lit. Kyushu Univ., 7, 59-102.
KÜNNAPAS, T. M. 1955 Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. J. exp. Psychol., 50, 168-170.
MAKINO, T. 1955 The problem of ‘comparison’ as a determinant of ‘size constancy.’ Jinbun Kenkyu (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univ.), 6, 129-144.
MAKINO, T. 1956 The problem of perceived size and distance. Jinbun Kenkyu (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univ.), 7, 15-30.
MAKINO, T., & UENO, T. 1963 Methodological studies of size constancy (1): Size constancy measured by two experimental methods. Jap. Psychol. Res., 5, 91-102.
MAKINO, T., & Ueno, T. 1964 Methodological studies of size constancy (2): Gradient of visual field as a determinant of size constancy. Jap. Psychol. Res., 6, 136-144.
METZGER, W. 1954 Psychologie.(2 Aufi.) Darmstadt: Steinkopff.
MORINAGA, S., & NOGUCHI, K. 1966 The perceptual constancy and the system of reference. Psychol. Forsch., 29, 149-160.
MORINAGA, S., NAKAJIMA, S., YAMADA, K., & NOGUCHI, K. 1958 Experimental studies on systems of reference in perception. Proceedings of 22nd Annual Meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association.
OVER, R. 1963 Size and distance-estimates of a single stimulus under different viewing conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 76, 452-457.
ROCK, I., & EBENHOLTZ 1959 The relational determination of perceived size. Psychol. Rev., 66, 387-401.
WITTE, W. 1960 Experimentelle Untersuchungen von Bezugssystemen: I. Struktur, Dynamik and Genese von Bezugssystemen. Psychol. Beitr., 4, 218-252.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : The problem was studied in terms of the system of reference: (1) the perceived size of an object decreased as the physical size of background increased; (2) the perceived distance also varied inversely with the physical size of background; (3) if the standard and comparison backgrounds at different distances subtended an equal visual angle the degree of size constancy was rather low whereas it was relatively high when the both backgrounds were equal in physical size; (4) the texture density (density of regularly distributed outline circles) of background affected size constancy though in a less degree than did the size of background. Concluded was that size constancy can be explained in terms of transformations in the system of reference which correspond to changes either in the distance of object or in the size and texture of background.
Right : The problem was studied in terms of the system of reference:(1) the perceived size of an object decreased as the physical size of background increased;(2) the perceived distance also varied inversely with the physical size of background;(3) if the standard and comparison backgrounds at different distances subtended an equal visual angle the degree of size constancy was rather low whereas it was relatively high when the both backgrounds were equal in physical size;(4) the texture density (density of regularly distributed outline circles) of background affected size constancy though in a less degree than did the size of background. Concluded was that size constancy can be explained in terms of transformations in the system of reference which correspond to changes either in the distance of object or in the size and texture of background.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : BAIRED, J. C. 1968 Toward a theory of frontalsize judgments. Percept. & Psychophys., 4, 49-53.
BLESSING, W. W., LANDAUER, A. A., & COLTHEART, M. 1967 The effect of false perspective cues on distance and size judgments: An examination of the invariance hypothesis. Amer. J. Psychol., 80, 250-256.
ENGEL, G., & PARDUCCI, A. 1961 Value of background in the specification of the stimulus for judgment. Amer. J. Psychol., 74, 569-575.
GIBSON, J. J. 1950 The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
GIBSON, J. J. 1959 Perception as a function of stimulation. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol.1. New York: McGraw-Hill, Pp.456-501.
GOGEL, W. C. 1963 The visual perception of size and distance. Vision Res., 3, 101-120.
GUILFORD, J. P. 1936 Psychometric methods.(1st ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
HASTORF, A. H., & WAY, K. W. 1952 Apparent size with and without distance cues. J. gen. Psychol., 47, 181-188.
HELSON, H. 1964 Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.
HELSON, H., & BEVAN, W. 1964 An investigation of variables in judgments of relative area. J. exp. Psychol., 67, 335-341.
HOLADAY, B. 1933 Die grössen Konstanz der Sehdinge bei Variationen der inneren and ausseren Wahrnehmungsbedeingungen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 88, 419-486.
HOLWAY, A. H., & BORING, E. G. 1941 Determinants of apparent visual size with distant variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 54, 21-37.
ITTELSON, W. H. 1951 The constancies in perceptual theory. Psychol. Rev., 58, 285-294.
ITTELSON, W. H. 1952 The Ames demonstrations in perception. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
KUME, K. 1952a On the relation between perceived size and viewing distance with some consideration of factors determining size constancy. I. Jap. J. Psychol., 22, 235-244.
KUME, K. 1952b On the relation between perceived size and viewing distance with some consideration of factors determining size constancy. II. Jap. J. Psychol., 23, 32-43.
KURODA, T. 1961 Experimental studies on size constancy. In Y. Akishige (Ed.), Experimental researches on the structure of the perceptual space. IV. Bull. Fac. Lit. Kyushu Univ., 7, 59-102.
KÜNNAPAS, T. M. 1955 Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. J. exp. Psychol., 50, 168-170.
MAKINO, T. 1955 The problem of ‘comparison’ as a determinant of ‘size constancy.’ Jinbun Kenkyu (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univ.), 6, 129-144.
MAKINO, T. 1956 The problem of perceived size and distance. Jinbun Kenkyu (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univ.), 7, 15-30.
MAKINO, T., & UENO, T. 1963 Methodological studies of size constancy (1): Size constancy measured by two experimental methods. Jap. Psychol. Res., 5, 91-102.
MAKINO, T., & Ueno, T. 1964 Methodological studies of size constancy (2): Gradient of visual field as a determinant of size constancy. Jap. Psychol. Res., 6, 136-144.
METZGER, W. 1954 Psychologie.(2 Aufi.) Darmstadt: Steinkopff.
MORINAGA, S., & NOGUCHI, K. 1966 The perceptual constancy and the system of reference. Psychol. Forsch., 29, 149-160.
MORINAGA, S., NAKAJIMA, S., YAMADA, K., & NOGUCHI, K. 1958 Experimental studies on systems of reference in perception. Proceedings of 22nd Annual Meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association.
OVER, R. 1963 Size and distance-estimates of a single stimulus under different viewing conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 76, 452-457.
ROCK, I., & EBENHOLTZ 1959 The relational determination of perceived size. Psychol. Rev., 66, 387-401.
WITTE, W. 1960 Experimentelle Untersuchungen von Bezugssystemen: I. Struktur, Dynamik and Genese von Bezugssystemen. Psychol. Beitr., 4, 218-252.

Right : BAIRED, J. C. 1968 Toward a theory of frontalsize judgments. Percept. & Psychophys., 4, 49-53.
BLESSING, W. W., LANDAUER, A. A., & COLTHEART, M. 1967 The effect of false perspective cues on distance- and size- judgments: An examination of the invariance hypothesis. Amer. J. Psychol., 80, 250-256.
ENGEL, G., & PARDUCCI, A. 1961 Value of background in the specification of the stimulus for judgment. Amer. J. Psychol., 74, 569-575.
GIBSON, J. J. 1950 The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
GIBSON, J. J. 1959 Perception as a function of stimulation. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol.1. New York: McGraw-Hill, Pp. 456-501.
GOGEL, W. C. 1963 The visual perception of size and distance. Vision Res., 3, 101-120.
GUILFORD, J. P. 1936 Psychometric methods.(1st ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
HASTORF, A. H., & WAY, K. W. 1952 Apparent size with and without distance cues. J. gen. Psychol., 47, 181-188.
HELSON, H. 1964 Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.
HELSON, H., & BEVAN, W. 1964 An investigation of variables in judgments of relative area. J. exp. Psychol., 67, 335-341.
HOLADAY, B. 1933 Die grössen Konstanz der Sehdinge bei Variationen der inneren und ausseren Wahrnehmungsbedeingungen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 88, 419-486.
HOLWAY, A. H., & BORING, E. G. 1941 Determinants of apparent visual size with distant variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 54, 21-37.
ITTELSON, W. H. 1951 The constancies in perceptual theory. Psychol. Rev., 58, 285-294.
ITTELSON, W. H. 1952 The Ames demonstrations in perception. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
KUME, K. 1952a On the relation between perceived size and viewing distance with some consideration of factors determining size constancy. I. Jap. J. Psychol., 22, 235-244.
KUME, K. 1952b On the relation between perceived size and viewing distance with some consideration of factors determining size constancy. II. Jap. J. Psychol., 23, 32-43.
KURODA, T. 1961 Experimental studies on size constancy. In Y. Akishige (Ed.), Experimental researches on the structure of the perceptual space. IV. Bull. Fac. Lit. Kyushu Univ., 7, 59-102.
KÜNNAPAS, T. M. 1955 Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. J. exp. Psychol., 50, 168-170.
MAKINO, T. 1955 The problem of ‘comparison’ as a determinant of ‘size constancy.’ Jinbun Kenkyu (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univ.), 6, 129-144.
MAKINO, T. 1956 The problem of perceived size and distance. Jinbun Kenkyu (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univ.), 7, 15-30.
MAKINO, T., & UENO, T. 1963 Methodological studies of size constancy (1): Size constancy measured by two experimental methods. Jap. psychol. Res., 5, 91-102.
MAKINO, T., & Ueno, T. 1964 Methodological studies of size constancy (2): Gradient of visual field as a determinant of size constancy. Jap. psychol. Res., 6, 136-144.
METZGER, W. 1954 Psychologie.(2 Aufl.) Darmstadt: Steinkopff.
MORINAGA, S., & NOGUCHI, K. 1966 The perceptual constancy and the system of reference. Psychol. Forsch., 29, 149-160.
MORINAGA, S., NAKAJIMA, S., YAMADA, K., & NOGUCHI, K. 1958 Experimental studies on systems of reference in perception. Proceedings of 22nd Annual Meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association.
OVER, R. 1963 Size- and distance-estimates of a single stimulus under different viewing conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 76, 452-457.
ROCK, I., & EBENHOLTZ 1959 The relational determination of perceived size. Psychol. Rev., 66, 387-401.
WITTE, W. 1960 Experimentelle Untersuchungen von Bezugssystemen: I. Struktur, Dynamik und Genese von Bezugssystemen. Psychol. Beitr., 4, 218-252.

Abstract

The problem was studied in terms of the system of reference:(1) the perceived size of an object decreased as the physical size of background increased;(2) the perceived distance also varied inversely with the physical size of background;(3) if the standard and comparison backgrounds at different distances subtended an equal visual angle the degree of size constancy was rather low whereas it was relatively high when the both backgrounds were equal in physical size;(4) the texture density (density of regularly distributed outline circles) of background affected size constancy though in a less degree than did the size of background. Concluded was that size constancy can be explained in terms of transformations in the system of reference which correspond to changes either in the distance of object or in the size and texture of background.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!