It long has been recognized that depth and flatness information influence the perception of size in pictures. However, never has their combined influence been factorially examined and quantified. Using the Ponzo illusion as a model, three experiments, using young adult observers, explored this combined influence. Results showed that the salience of depth information and the salience of flatness information had a cumulative impact on size perception such that, for example, the combined effects of higher depth salience and lower flatness salience produced responses more closely approaching size constancy than did other combinations of depth and flatness salience. Furthermore, females' size perception more closely approached size constancy than did that of males, although this difference disappeared in conditions where depth salience was particularly low. The three experiments are discussed in terms of the interaction between depth and flatness and its implications for perceiving size in pictures, and possible implications of this interaction with gender, including the possibility that females may process depth information in a manner different from males.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnheimR. (1954). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye.Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
BrennerE., & Van DammeW. J. M. (1998). Judging distance from ocular convergence. Vision Research, 38, 493–498.
3.
BrislinR. W. (1974). The Ponzo illusion: Additional cues, age, orientation, and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 139–161.
4.
BrislinR. W., & KeatingC. F. (1976). Cultural differences in the perception of a three-dimensional Ponzo illusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7, 397–411.
5.
CaplanP. J.MacPhersonG. M., & TobinP. (1985). Do sex-related differences in spatial abilities exist?American Psychologist, 40, 786–799.
6.
CorenS., & GirgusJ. S. (1978). Seeing is deceiving: The psychology of visual illusions.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
7.
DayR. H. (1994). The foundations of veridical and illusory perception. In BallesterosS. (ed.), Cognitive approaches to human perception (pp. 243–268). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
8.
DeLuciaP. R., & HochbergJ. (1991). Geometrical illusions in solid objects under ordinary viewing conditions. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 547–554.
9.
EnnsJ. T., & CorenS. (1995). The box alignment illusion: An orientation illusion induced by pictorial depth. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1163–1174.
10.
FoleyJ. M. (1978). Primary distance perception. In HeldR.LeibowitzH., & TeuberH.-L. (eds.), Handbook of sensory physiology: Vol. 8. Perception (pp. 182–213). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
11.
FoleyJ. M. (1980). Binocular distance perception. Psychological Review, 87, 411–434.
GogelW. C. (1975). Depth adjacency and the Ponzo illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 125–132.
14.
GregoryR. L. (1963). Distortion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling. Nature, 199, 678–680.
15.
GregoryR. L. (1967). Comments on the inappropriate constancy scaling theory of the illusions and its implications. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 219–223.
16.
HaberR. N. (1980). Perceiving space from pictures: A theoretical analysis. In HagenM. A. (ed.), The perception of pictures: Vol. 1. Alberti's window: The projective model of pictorial information (pp. 3–31). New York: Academic Press.
17.
HagenM. A. (1980). Generative theory: A perceptual theory of pictorial representations. In HagenM. A. (ed.), The perception of pictures: Vol. 2. Dürer's devices: Beyond the projective model of pictures (pp. 3–46). New York: Academic Press.
18.
HagenM. A. (1986). Varieties of realism: Geometrics of representational art.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HolwayA. H., & BoringE. G. (1941). Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 21–37.
20.
IidaT. (1983). Accommodation response under reduced visual conditions. Japanese Psychological Research, 25, 222–227.
21.
JonesR. K., & HagenM. A. (1980). A perspective on cross-cultural picture perception. In HagenM. A. (ed.), The perception of pictures: Vol. 2. Dürer's devices: Beyond the projective model of pictures (pp. 193–226). New York: Academic Press.
22.
JordanK., & RandallJ. (1987). The effects of framing ratio and oblique length on Ponzo illusion magnitude. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 435–439.
23.
KilbrideP. L., & LeibowitzH. W. (1975). Factors affecting the magnitude of the Ponzo perspective illusion among the Baganda. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 543–548.
24.
KilpatrickF. P., & IttelsonW. H. (1953). The size-distance invariance hypothesis. Psychological Review, 60, 223–231.
25.
LeibowitzH.BrislinR.PerlmutterL., & HennessyR. (1969). Ponzo perspective illusion as a manifestation of space perception. Science, 166, 1174–1176.
26.
LeibowitzH. W., & MooreD. (1966). Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 56, 1120–1122.
27.
LeibowitzH. W., & PickH. A.Jr. (1972). Cross-cultural and educational aspects of the Ponzo illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 430–432.
28.
McGeeM. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889–918.
29.
MillerR. J. (1997). Pictorial depth cue orientation influences the magnitude of perceived depth. Visual Arts Research, 23, 97–124.
30.
NewmanC. V., & NewmanB. M. (1974). The Ponzo illusion in pictures with and without suggested depth. American Journal of Psychology, 87, 511–516.
31.
OlsonR.YonasA., & CooperR. (1980). Development of pictorial perception. In HagenM. A. (ed.), The perception of pictures: Vol. 2. Dürer's devices: Beyond the projective model of pictures (pp. 155–192). New York: Academic Press.
32.
PattersonR., & FoxR. (1983). Depth separation and the Ponzo illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 25–28.
33.
PirenneM. H. (1970). Optics, painting, and photography.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
PirenneM. H. (1975). Vision and art. In CarteretteE. C. & FriedmanM. P. (eds.), Handbook of perception: Vol. 5. Seeing (pp. 433–490). New York: Academic Press.
PresseyA. W.ButchardN., & ScrivnerL. (1971). Assimilation theory and the Ponzo illusion: Quantitative predictions. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 25, 486–497.
37.
QuinaK., & PollackR. H. (1972). Effects of test line position and age on the magnitude of the Ponzo illusion, Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 253–256.
38.
SchillerP., & WienerM. (1962). Binocular and stereoscopic viewing of geometric illusions. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 15, 739–747.
39.
SchlosbergH. (1941). Stereoscopic depth from single pictures. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 601–605.
40.
SolsoR. L. (1994). Cognition and the visual arts.Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
41.
StuartG. W.BossomaierT. R. J., & JohnsonS. (1993). Preattentive processing of object size: Implications for theories of size perception. Perception, 22, 1175–1193.
42.
TakagiT. (1988). Effects of orientation of the converging lines on the Ponzo illusion magnitude. Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science, 7, 15–22.
43.
TauschR. (1954). Optische Täuschungen als artifizielle Effekte der Gestaltungsprozesse von Grössen- und Formenkonstanz in der Natürlichen Raumwahrnehmung [Optical illusions as artifacts of the mechanisms of size and shape constancy in normal space perception]. Psychologische Forschung, 24, 299–348.
VoyerD.VoyerS., & BrydenM. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270.
46.
WardL. M.PoracC.CorenS., & GirgusJ. S. (1977). The case for misapplied constancy scaling: Depth associations elicited by illusion configurations. American Journal of Psychology, 90, 609–620.
