SIZE CONSTANCY BY THE METHOD OF SINGLE STIMULI A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

TAKEHIRO UENO

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.5.153

TAKEHIRO UENO

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1963 Volume 5 Issue 4 Pages 153-160

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.5.153

Details

Published: 1963 Received: November 25, 1963 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 : From the viewpoint of measurement models, size constancy in single stimuli situation was investigated. Two experi-ments were carried out. The concept of size was discussed with two measurement models.
Right : From the point of view of measurement models, size constancy of a single object was investigated by using three-dimensional familiar and unfamiliar objects. Two measurement models were applied to a stimulus series. One measurement model referred to perceived size and another assumed size. Presentation distance of the stimuli ranged from 1m to 5m apart from the O. The results are:(a) Constancy of assumed size was higher than that of perceived size.(b) Both assumed size and perceived size showed slightly a tendency to increase with increasing distance. The concept of size was discussed with the two measurement models.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Osaka City Universiy

Right :
1) Osaka City University

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : BOLLES, R. C., & BAILEY, D. E. Importance of object recognition in size constancy. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 222-225.
BORING, E. G. Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Apple-ton-Century, 1942.
BORING, E. G. Visual perception as invariance. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 141-148. (a)
BORING, E. G. The Gibsonian visual field. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 246-247. (b)
BRUNSWIK, E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press, 1956.
CARLSON, V. R. Overestimation in size-constancy judgments. Amer. J. Psychol., 1960, 73, 199-213.
CARLSON, V. R. Size-constancy judgments and perceptual compromise. J. esp. Psychol., 1962, 63, 68-73.
COOMBS, C. H. A theory of psychological scaling. Univ. Mich. Engng. Res. Inst. Bull., 1952, No. 34.
COOMBS, C. H. The theory and methods of social measurement. In L. Festinger & D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Dryden, 1953, Pp. 471-535.
COOMBS, C. H. A theory of data. Psychol. Rev., 1960, 67, 143-159.
EDWARDS, W. Emmert's law and Euclid's optics. Amer. J. Psychol., 1950, 63, 607-612.
GIBSON, J. J. The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Miff in, 1950.
GIBSON, J. J. The visual field and the visual world: a reply to Professor Boring. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 149-151.
GILINSKY, A. S. Perceived size and distance in visual space. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 460-482.
GILINSKY, A. S. The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. Amer. J. Psychol., 1955, 68, 173-192.
HASTORF, A. H. The influence of suggestion on the relationship between stimulus size and per-ceived distance. J. Psychol., 1950, 29, 195-217.
HELSON, H. Size-constancy of the projected after-image. Amer. J. Psychol., 1936, 48, 638-642.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. Amer. J. Psychol., 1947, 60, 1-29.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 297-313.
HELSON, H. Adaptation level theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
HOCHBERG, C. B., & HOCHHBERG, J. E. Familiar size and the perception of depth. J. Psychol., 1952, 34, 107-114.
HOLWAY, A. H., & BORING, E. G. Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 1941, 54, 21-37.
ITTELSON, W. H. The constancies in perceptual theory. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 285-294. (a)
ITTELSON, W. H. Size as a cue to distance: static localization. Amer. J. Psychol., 1951, 64, 54-67. (b)
ITTELSON, W. H. Visual space perception. New York: Springer, 1960.
JOYNSON, R. B. The problem of size and distance. Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 1, 119-135.
KURODA, T. Experimental studies on size con-stancy. Bull. Lit. Fac. Kyushu Univer., Kyushu Psychological Studies, 1961, 7, 59-102.
MARINO, T. A methodological investigation of ‘size constancy’. Jimbun Kenkyu, Studies in the Humanities (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univer.), 1954, 5, 1-23.
MARINO, T., & UENO, T. Methodological studies of size constancy (1): Size constancy measured by two experimental methods. Jap. Psychol. Res., 1963, 5, 91-102.
MARTTUS, G. Ueber die scheinbare Grösse der Gegenstände und ihre Beziehung zur Grösse der Netzhautbilder. Wundts Phil. Stud., 1889, 5, 601-617.
MCKENNELL, A. C. Visual size and familiar size: individual differences. Brit. 7. Psychol., 1960, 51, 27-35.
OVER, R. Size- and distance-estimates of a single stimulus under different viewing conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 1963, 76, 452-457.
STEVENS, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153-181.
STEVENS, S. S. Ratio scales, partition scales and confusion scales. In H. Gulliksen & S. Messick (Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: John Wiley, 1960, Pp. 49-66.
STEVENS, S. S., & GALANTER, E. H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 54, 377-411.
THOULESS, R. H. Phenomenal regression to the real object. Brit. J. Psychol., 1931, 21, 339-359; 22, 1-30.
TORGERSON, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: John Wiley, 1958.
UENO, T. The size-distance invariance hypothesis and the psychophysical law. Jap. Psychol. Res., 1962, 4, 99-112.
VERNON, M. D. The perception of distance. Brit. J. Psychol., 1937, 28, 115-149.
VERNON, M. D. The functions of schemata in perceiving. Psychol. Rezv., 1955, 62, 180-192.

Right : BOLLES, R. C., & BAILEY, D. E. Importance of object recognition in size constancy. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 222-225.
BORING, E. G. Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1942.
BORING, E. G. Visual perception as invariance. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 141-148.(a)
BORING, E. G. The Gibsonian visual field. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 246-247.(b)
BRUNSWIK, E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: Univ. Calif Press, 1956.
CARLSON, V. R. Overestimation in size-constancy judgments. Amer. J. Psychol., 1960, 73, 199-213.
CARLSON, V. R. Size-constancy judgments and perceptual compromise. J. exp. Psychol., 1962, 63, 68-73.
COOMBS, C. H. A theory of psychological scaling. Univ. Mich. Engng. Res. Inst. Bidl., 1952, No.34.
COOMBS, C. H. The theory and methods of social measurement. In L. Festinger & D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Dryden, 1953, pp.471-535.
COOMBS, C. H. A theory of data. Psychol. Rev., 1960, 67, 143-159.
EDWARDS, W. Emmert's law and Euclid's optics. Amer. J. Psychol., 1950, 63, 607-612.
GIBSON, J. J. The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Miff in, 1950.
GIBSON, J. J. The visual field and the visual world: a reply to Professor Boring. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 149-151.
GILINSKY, A. S. Perceived size and distance in visual space. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 460-482.
GILINSKY, A. S. The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. Amer. J. Psychol., 1955, 68, 173-192.
HASTORF, A. H. The influence of suggestion on the relationship between stimulus size and perceived distance. J. Psychol., 1950, 29, 195-217.
HELSON, H. Size-constancy of the projected afterimage. Amer. J. Psychol., 1936, 48, 638-642.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. Amer. J. Psychol., 1947, 60, 1-29.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 297-313.
HELSON, H. Adaptation level theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol.1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
HOCHBERG, C. B., & HOCHBERG, J. E. Familiar size and the perception of depth. J. Psychol., 1952, 34, 107-114.
HOLWAY, A. H., & BORING, E. G. Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 1941, 54, 21-37.
ITTELSON, W. H. The constancies in perceptual theory. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 285-294.(a)
ITTELSON, W. H. Size as a cue to distance: static localization. Amer. J. Psychol., 1951, 64, 54-67.(b)
ITTELSON, W. H. Visual space perception. New York: Springer, 1960.
JOYNSON, R. B. The problem of size and distance. Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 1, 119-135.
KURODA, T. Experimental studies on size constancy. Bull. Lit. Fac. Kyushu Univer., Kyushu Psychological Studies, 1961, 7, 59-102.
MAKINO, T. A methodological investigation of ‘size constancy’. Jimbun Kenkyu, Studies in the Humanities (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univer.), 1954, 5, 1-23.
MAKINO, T., & UENO, T. Methodological studies of size constancy (1): Size constancy measured by two experimental methods. Jap. Psychol. Res., 1963, 5, 91-102.
MARTIUS, G. Ueber die scheinbare Grösse der Gegenstände and ihre Beziehung zur Grösse der Netzhautbilder. Wundts Phil. Stud., 1889, 5, 601-617.
MCKENNELL, A. C. Visual size and familiar size: individual differences. Brit. J. Psychol., 1960, 51, 27-35.
OVER, R. Size- and distance-estimates of a single stimulus under different viewing conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 1963, 76, 452-457.
STEVENS, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153-181.
STEVENS, S. S. Ratio scales, partition scales and confusion scales. In H. Gulliksen & S. Messick (Eds.): Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: John Wiley, 1960, pp.49-66.
STEVENS, S. S., & GALANTER, E. H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua, J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 54, 377-411.
THOULESS, R. H. Phenomenal regression to the real object. Brit. J. Psychol., 1931, 21, 339-359; 22, 1-30.
TORGERSON, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: John Wiley, 1958.
UENO, T. The size-distance invariance hypothesis and the psychophysical law. Jap. Psychol. Res., 1962, 4, 99-112.
VERNON, M. D. The perception of distance. Brit. J. Psychol., 1937, 28, 115-149.
VERNON, M. D. The functions of schemata in perceiving. Psychol. Rev., 1955, 62, 180-192.

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

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : BOLLES, R. C., & BAILEY, D. E. Importance of object recognition in size constancy. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 222-225.
BORING, E. G. Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1942.
BORING, E. G. Visual perception as invariance. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 141-148.(a)
BORING, E. G. The Gibsonian visual field. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 246-247.(b)
BRUNSWIK, E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: Univ. Calif Press, 1956.
CARLSON, V. R. Overestimation in size-constancy judgments. Amer. J. Psychol., 1960, 73, 199-213.
CARLSON, V. R. Size-constancy judgments and perceptual compromise. J. exp. Psychol., 1962, 63, 68-73.
COOMBS, C. H. A theory of psychological scaling. Univ. Mich. Engng. Res. Inst. Bidl., 1952, No.34.
COOMBS, C. H. The theory and methods of social measurement. In L. Festinger & D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Dryden, 1953, pp.471-535.
COOMBS, C. H. A theory of data. Psychol. Rev., 1960, 67, 143-159.
EDWARDS, W. Emmert's law and Euclid's optics. Amer. J. Psychol., 1950, 63, 607-612.
GIBSON, J. J. The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Miff in, 1950.
GIBSON, J. J. The visual field and the visual world: a reply to Professor Boring. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 149-151.
GILINSKY, A. S. Perceived size and distance in visual space. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 460-482.
GILINSKY, A. S. The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. Amer. J. Psychol., 1955, 68, 173-192.
HASTORF, A. H. The influence of suggestion on the relationship between stimulus size and perceived distance. J. Psychol., 1950, 29, 195-217.
HELSON, H. Size-constancy of the projected afterimage. Amer. J. Psychol., 1936, 48, 638-642.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. Amer. J. Psychol., 1947, 60, 1-29.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 297-313.
HELSON, H. Adaptation level theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol.1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
HOCHBERG, C. B., & HOCHBERG, J. E. Familiar size and the perception of depth. J. Psychol., 1952, 34, 107-114.
HOLWAY, A. H., & BORING, E. G. Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 1941, 54, 21-37.
ITTELSON, W. H. The constancies in perceptual theory. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 285-294.(a)
ITTELSON, W. H. Size as a cue to distance: static localization. Amer. J. Psychol., 1951, 64, 54-67.(b)
ITTELSON, W. H. Visual space perception. New York: Springer, 1960.
JOYNSON, R. B. The problem of size and distance. Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 1, 119-135.
KURODA, T. Experimental studies on size constancy. Bull. Lit. Fac. Kyushu Univer., Kyushu Psychological Studies, 1961, 7, 59-102.
MAKINO, T. A methodological investigation of ‘size constancy’. Jimbun Kenkyu, Studies in the Humanities (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univer.), 1954, 5, 1-23.
MAKINO, T., & UENO, T. Methodological studies of size constancy (1): Size constancy measured by two experimental methods. Jap. Psychol. Res., 1963, 5, 91-102.
MARTIUS, G. Ueber die scheinbare Grösse der Gegenstände and ihre Beziehung zur Grösse der Netzhautbilder. Wundts Phil. Stud., 1889, 5, 601-617.
MCKENNELL, A. C. Visual size and familiar size: individual differences. Brit. J. Psychol., 1960, 51, 27-35.
OVER, R. Size- and distance-estimates of a single stimulus under different viewing conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 1963, 76, 452-457.
STEVENS, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153-181.
STEVENS, S. S. Ratio scales, partition scales and confusion scales. In H. Gulliksen & S. Messick (Eds.): Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: John Wiley, 1960, pp.49-66.
STEVENS, S. S., & GALANTER, E. H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua, J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 54, 377-411.
THOULESS, R. H. Phenomenal regression to the real object. Brit. J. Psychol., 1931, 21, 339-359; 22, 1-30.
TORGERSON, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: John Wiley, 1958.
UENO, T. The size-distance invariance hypothesis and the psychophysical law. Jap. Psychol. Res., 1962, 4, 99-112.
VERNON, M. D. The perception of distance. Brit. J. Psychol., 1937, 28, 115-149.
VERNON, M. D. The functions of schemata in perceiving. Psychol. Rev., 1955, 62, 180-192.

Right : BOLLES, R. C., & BAILEY, D. E. Importance of object recognition in size constancy. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 222-225.
BORING, E. G. Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1942.
BORING, E. G. Visual perception as invariance. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 141-148.(a)
BORING, E. G. The Gibsonian visual field. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 246-247.(b)
BRUNSWIK, E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: Univ. Calif Press, 1956.
CARLSON, V. R. Overestimation in size-constancy judgments. Amer. J. Psychol., 1960, 73, 199-213.
CARLSON, V. R. Size-constancy judgments and perceptual compromise. J. exp. Psychol., 1962, 63, 68-73.
COOMBS, C. H. A theory of psychological scaling. Univ. Mich. Engng. Res. Inst. Bull., 1952, No.34.
COOMBS, C. H. The theory and methods of social measurement. In L. Festinger & D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Dryden, 1953, Pp.471-535.
COOMBS, C. H. A theory of data. Psychol. Rev., 1960, 67, 143-159.
EDWARDS, W. Emmert's law and Euclid's optics. Amer. J. Psychol., 1950, 63, 607-612.
GIBSON, J. J. The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Miff in, 1950.
GIBSON, J. J. The visual field and the visual world: a reply to Professor Boring. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 149-151.
GILINSKY, A. S. Perceived size and distance in visual space. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 460-482.
GILINSKY, A. S. The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. Amer. J. Psychol., 1955, 68, 173-192.
HASTORF, A. H. The influence of suggestion on the relationship between stimulus size and perceived distance. J. Psychol., 1950, 29, 195-217.
HELSON, H. Size-constancy of the projected afterimage. Amer. J. Psychol., 1936, 48, 638-642.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. Amer. J. Psychol., 1947, 60, 1-29.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 297-313.
HELSON, H. Adaptation level theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol.1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
HOCHBERG, C. B., & HOCHBERG, J. E. Familiar size and the perception of depth. J. Psychol., 1952, 34, 107-114.
HOLWAY, A. H., & BORING, E. G. Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 1941, 54, 21-37.
ITTELSON, W. H. The constancies in perceptual theory. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 285-294.(a)
ITTELSON, W. H. Size as a cue to distance: static localization. Amer. J. Psychol., 1951, 64, 54-67.(b)
ITTELSON, W. H. Visual space perception. New York: Springer, 1960.
JOYNSON, R. B. The problem of size and distance. Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 1, 119-135.
KURODA, T. Experimental studies on size constancy. Bull. Lit. Fac. Kyushu Univer., Kyushu Psychological Studies, 1961, 7, 59-102.
MAKINO, T. A methodological investigation of ‘size constancy’. Jimbun Kenkyu, Studies in the Humanities (J. Lit. Assoc. Osaka City Univer.), 1954, 5, 1-23.
MAKINO, T., & UENO, T. Methodological studies of size constancy (1): Size constancy measured by two experimental methods. Jap. Psychol. Res., 1963, 5, 91-102.
MARTIUS, G. Ueber die scheinbare Grösse der Gegenstände und ihre Beziehung zur Grösse der Netzhautbilder. Wundts Phil. Stud., 1889, 5, 601-617.
MCKENNELL, A. C. Visual size and familiar size: individual differences. Brit. J. Psychol., 1960, 51, 27-35.
OVER, R. Size- and distance-estimates of a single stimulus under different viewing conditions. Amer. J. Psychol., 1963, 76, 452-457.
STEVENS, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153-181.
STEVENS, S. S. Ratio scales, partition scales and confusion scales. In H. Gulliksen & S. Messick (Eds.): Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: John Wiley, 1960, Pp.49-66.
STEVENS, S. S., & GALANTER, E. H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua, J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 54, 377-411.
THOULESS, R. H. Phenomenal regression to the real object. Brit. J. Psychol., 1931, 21, 339-359; 22, 1-30.
TORGERSON, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: John Wiley, 1958.
UENO, T. The size-distance invariance hypothesis and the psychophysical law. Jap. Psychol. Res., 1962, 4, 99-112.
VERNON, M. D. The perception of distance. Brit. J. Psychol., 1937, 28, 115-149.
VERNON, M. D. The functions of schemata in perceiving. Psychol. Rev., 1955, 62, 180-192.

Abstract

From the point of view of measurement models, size constancy of a single object was investigated by using three-dimensional familiar and unfamiliar objects. Two measurement models were applied to a stimulus series. One measurement model referred to perceived size and another assumed size. Presentation distance of the stimuli ranged from 1m to 5m apart from the O. The results are:(a) Constancy of assumed size was higher than that of perceived size.(b) Both assumed size and perceived size showed slightly a tendency to increase with increasing distance. The concept of size was discussed with the two measurement models.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!