}
}

"i "' 1
H

H

?

1')

ll

 

.CDOO—A

EFFECTS OF CERTNN TARGET AND
OBSERVER VAREABLES UPON THE
PHENOMENAL NSTANCE 0F LEFT SIDE
AND REGHT SIDE FOREGROUND ”EMS

Thesis for the Degree cf M. A.
MECHEGAN STATE UNWERSITY
FRANK HGLLY
1971

LIB R ARY *1
Michigan State
University 6'"

k !
.,. W‘flfr‘flfifl A“;

  
  

 

    
   

 
 

,- amsmq' av ‘é
‘ HMS & SUNS'
800” “WWW INC. ,,

In 'TV 7 DFRR

 

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF CERTAIN TARGET AND OBSERVER VARIABLES
UPON THE PHENOMENAL DISTANCE OF
LEFT SIDE AND RIGHT SIDE FOREGROUND ITEMS
By

Frank Holly

Previous work by Bartley and others has shown that the
perceived nearness of items in the fore and mid grounds of pictures
is related to their lateral position and that of other items in the back-
ground. The psychophysical method used was a distance matching one
in which the comparison targets contained the critical items in different
lateral positions, while the standard targets were pictures of essentially
the same scenes but reduced in size. The task was to equate the criti-
cal items in the standard and comparison prints for distance.

The present study used the same method and attempted to
identify other target and organismic variables which influence this
phenomenon. In addition to handedness, characteristic direction of
eye movement, and sighting dominance, three other variables were

studied: (1) the location of the subject' 3 imaginary standpoint along

Frank Holly

the horizontal dimension as he views a picture, (2) the presence or
absence of a highway in the median plane, and (3) the presence or
absence of cropping along the sides of the foreground.

The hypotheses tested were: (I) There is a correlation
between the location of one' s imaginary standpoint along the fore-
ground and the magnitude of one' s sideward effects; (II) Cropping
the picture in such a manner as to bring the foreground to a point in
the center or adding an object such as a highway with its perspective
lines to the median plane of the picture produces two results: (a) one
tends to locate his imagined standpoint nearer to the center of the
horizontal dimension, and (b) the magnitude of the sideward effects
is lessened; (III) (a) Under conditions of Set I, in which the large
background items are located on the right, right -handers show a
greater tendency than left -handers to perceive an object in the left
foreground as closer than one in the right foreground; (III) (b) Under
conditions of Set II, in which the large background items are located
on the left, left —handers show a greater tenedncy than right -handers
to perceive an object in the right foreground as closer than one in
the left foreground; (IV) There is a relationship between magnitude
of sideward effects and (a) sighting dominance and (b) direction of

eye movements.

.y‘T’ "‘1" 'F U '

Frank Holly

Hypothesis 111 (b) was supported by the results, Hypothesis
II (a) received partial support, and Hypotheses I, II (b), III (a), and
IV were not supported. These results were discussed in terms of

other work in this area.

Approved

 

Date

 

EFFECTS OF CERTAIN TARGET AND OBSERVER VARIABLES
UPON THE PHENOMENAL DISTANCE OF

LEFT SIDE AND RIGHT SIDE FOREGROUND ITEMS

By

Frank Holly

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1971

@051

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank the members of my committee,
Dr. S. Howard Bartley, Dr. Charles Hanley, and Dr. Paul
Bakan, for their helpfulness throughout this project. I also
wish to thank Dr. Merrill Mitler for his assistance in the data
analysis and Mrs. Shirley Swick for her excellent work in pre -

paring this manuscript.

ii

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
Subjects
Apparatus .
Procedure .
RESULTS
DISCUSSION .

REFERENCES .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

Page

iv

10
10
15
19
23

28

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Analysis of Variance (Indicator
Settings) 20

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure . Page
1. Schematic drawing of the Apparatus . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Picture holder with horizontal indicator . . . . . . . 13
3. Targets used in study (schematic) . . . . . . . . . . 14

INTRODUC TION

The perceptual changes resulting from the mirror image
reversal of a picture have been discussed by Gaffron (1950, 1962)
in a series of articles. While maintaining that these changes will
eventually be amenable to classification in terms of basic effects
or principles, her efforts have been largely confined to extensive
listings of the changes occurring in certain specific pictures.

One effect which she has pointed out again and again in
different pictures is the greater salience or apparent nearness of
objects in the left foreground over those in the right foreground.

To explain this and the other effects occurring upon reversal she
postulates a glance curve beginning in the near left corner of the
three -dimensional picture -space and ending in the far right corner.
The fact that observers tend to locate their standpoint near the
beginning of the glance curve explains the greater nearness of the
left -hand objects. This does not refer to any physical displacement
of the obser'vervis a -vis the target but rather the imagined stand-
point of the observer in the imaginary three -dimensional picture -

space suggested by the target.

Nor is the glance curve to be thought of in its most literal
sense:

It must be emphasized that we are not dealing with voluntary or
involuntary eye movements that could be observed by the usual
experimental methods. We are dealing with a phenomenon

based upon the central processes of visual perception. All
objects within the range of this path are recognized spontaneously,
while we must look separately for those located outside, 1. e.

in the right foreground or upper left background. The relation-
ship of the glance curve to physical eye movements has still

to be determined [Gaffron, 1950] .

A study by Adair and Bartley (1958) represented the first
attempt to apply psychophysics to this problem of sideward differences
in pictures (sideward is used as the perceptual correlate of the
physical term lateral). They used five scenes with varying degrees
of sideward asymmetry as determined by five judges. Apprently
the main criterion of asymmetry was the sideward distance from the
center of the scene at which the prominent objects were located.
Corresponding to each of the five scenes was a mirror image reversal
with the asymmetry in the opposite direction.

There-were two sizes of prints, 4 X 4 inches and 8 X 8 inches.
Thus there were four prints of each scene, one with normal and one
with reversed orientation in each of the two sizes. During each trial
there was one small and one large print visible to the observer. The

small prints were placed at a fixed distance just to the right of a

track and the large prints were placed on a carriage on the track.

The two large versions of each scene appeared in combination with
each of the two small versions of each scene. The Os were instructed
to adjust the metric distance of the large print so that the scene in

it appeared to be at the same distance as the corresponding scene in
the small print.

It was found that the pictures which had the prominent items
on the left were placed at a greater distance than were those which
had these items on the right. In addition, the distance setting of the
prints was influenced by the asymmetry factor in the manner expected;
the greater the asymmetry in a scene, the more accentuated were the
left -right differences.

In a later study, Bartley and Thompson (1959) used prints
whose asymmetry was established on a more objective basis. All
scenes consisted of a human figure standing on the center stripe of
a roadway extending from the foreground to the horizon. There were
also some trees and a few other items in the scenes. The human
figure was placed in five different lateral positions, two placements
on the left, two on the right and one in the center. In agreement
with the previous study it was found that the human figure when on
the extreme left appeared closer than when on the extreme right.

The same difference was found between the less extreme positions

but to a lesser extent.

Further studies by Bartley and DeHardt (1960) and Ranney
and Bartley (1963) showed that the statement that objects on the left
appear closer than objects on the right is too general; the location of
large background objects also affects the perceived nearness of
critical objects in the foreground. Specifically, the perception of
the left foreground object as being closer than the same object in
the right foreground is maximized when a large item is positioned
in the right background. In fact, one study (Ranney and Bartley)
obtained a reversal of the perceived distance of the right and left
critical objects when a large background item was on the left. This
study also found that the position of the large background item has a
greater effect on small critical objects in the foreground than on
large ones.

Recently another factor, lateral eye movements, has been
added to handedness as a sort of window upon some of the functional
asymmetries of the brain. Handedness is often used as an indication
of where certain functional centers lie. The eye movement studies
of Bakan (1969) and Bakan and Shotland (1969), on the other hand,
have dealt with functions, aptitudes, emotions, etc. , whose loci of
control are in one hemisphere or the other and whose position (right
or left hemisphere) can be considered stable across subjects. Since

a characteristic movement in one direction or the other is believed

to result from an easier triggering of the contralateral hemisphere,
correlations are sought between the direction of eye movement and
the functions controlled by that hemisphere.

This eye movement phenomenon occurs at the beginning of
a period of reflection upon a question. or problem and was first
brought to attention by Day (1964). Of special interest is his state -
ment that "in general the right mover shows an externalized actively
responsive distribution of attention emphasizing the visual -haptic
modes, " whereas ”the left -mover shows an internalized, subjective

. distribution of attention in which he is more reactive to auditory
and subjective visual experience [Day, 1967].. "

Bakan and Shotland found that right -movers were able to
read a list of color names faster than left -movers. They then used
this to account for another finding, i. e. that right-movers were able
to go through the Stroop color word test faster than left -movers.

In this test, the names of different colors are printed in various
colors which do not correspond to those indicated by the words.

An obvious question to ask is whether there is any relation-
ship between the sorts of left -right differences discussed by Gaffron,
Bartley and others on the one handiand handedness, eye dominance,
and direction of eye movements on the other. Gaffron suggests that

the left hemisphere is visually dominant for right —handers.

This means that there exists a difference in our awareness of
visual data in favor of those which are perceived within the
right visual field. The asymmetric glance curve . . . compen—
sates for this asymmetry in our perceptual field and permits
the most complete, unfalsified impression of three -dimensional
space by visual space perception [Gaffron, 1950] .
A left —handed person, according to this, should have a reversed
glance curve; and as evidence she offers the case of Leonardo
Da Vinci whose notebook pages and pictures "have to be reversed
in order to show the composition which best fits the subject matter
from the point of view of the right handed spectator [Gaffron, 1950] . "
She also says that a glance curve is not found in young children,
which, if true, would agree with present beliefs that brain dominance
is not present early in life.

In looking for a correlation with handedness or direction of
eye movements we are asking two questions: (1) Is this phenomenon
the result of a functional imbalance between the two halves of the
brain and, if so, (2) does its strength and direction covary with
handedness according to the classical formula or is it related to the
direction of eye movements or to neither of these factors?

The second major aspect of this study concerns Gaffron' 8
statement that the reason for the greater salience of left -hand

objects is that observers tend to locate their imagined standpoint at

the beginning of the glance curve.

. we have the feeling that the left side is "our side. "

. . A person standing in the left foreground with his back
turned toward us arouses a decided feeling of identification
with ourselves because his position comes nearest to the one
we assume as a spectator. For the same reason, we feel that
a person looking out of the picture from the left foreground is
directly opposed to us [Gaffron, 1950] .

Thompson and Bartley (1959) looked for an effect of this sort in two
pictures which contained a human figure standing in the center. The
only difference between the two pictures was that in one the subject
was facing the camera and in the other he had his back turned to it.
They found that the man with his back to the camera seemed nearer.
Whether or not one wishes to accept the idea of a glance
curve, it seems logical to postulate that the greater nearness of
objects in the left foreground is the result of a general tendency for
the majority of subjects (right -handers) to select an imaginery
standpoint which is displaced left of center. Even casual observa—
tion would suggest that an observer, in locating his imaginary stand-
point, would have greater difficulty with the horizontal dimension
than with the vertical. It would be quite unusual for an observer to
imagine himself as viewing a scene from the midground or back-
ground rather than the foreground. . However, in fixing his position
along the horizontal dimension of this foreground, an observer is

faced with the fact that the foreground as represented in a rectangular

picture is a poor facsimile of the foreground in a real -life scene.

In this study, there will be four sets of pictures, two of

which will be designed to fix the standpoint in the center of the fore-

ground. Subjects will be asked to indicate their standpoint along this

foreground and will also be given the usual task of positioning these

pictures on a track in such a manner that the critical object appears

to be at the same distance as a critical object in a small, fixed

version of the picture. It is hypothesized that:

II.

III.

There is a correlation between the location of one' s imaginary
standpoint along the foreground and the magnitude of one' 3 side -

ward effects.

Cropping the picture in such a manner as to bring the foreground
to a point in the center or adding an object such as a highway
withits perspective lines to the median plane of the picture will
produce two results: (a) one will tend to locate his imagined
standpoint nearer to the center of the horizontal dimension and

(b) the magnitude of the sideward effects will be lessened

(a) Under conditions of Set I, right -handers show a greater
tendency than left -handers to perceive an object in the left
foreground as closer than one in the right foreground. (b) Under

conditions of Set 11, left-handers show a greater tendency than

IV.

right -handers to perceive an object in the right foreground as

closer than one in the left foreground.

There is a relationship between magnitude of sideward effects

and (a) sighting dominance and (b) direction of eye movements.

ME THOD

Subjects

Subjects were fifty -five (twenty -seven male and twenty-
eight female) students at Michigan State University who volunteered
from undergraduate psychology courses. All had corrected or

uncorrected visual acuity of 20/30 or better.

Apparatus

 

The main piece of apparatus consisted of a 275-inch
calibrated track (Figure 1). Mounted on the track was a movable
. target holder for the large prints. A headrest and screen were
located at one end and a hole in the screen allowed monocular view-
ing of the targets. The headrest could be moved laterally so as to
allow viewing with either the left or right eye. The stationary
target holder (for the small prints) was positioned 27 inches in front
of the screen and 9 inches off to the right of the track. Control
knobs on the sides operated the movable target holder.

There was diffuse overhead lighting and a black screen near

the other end of the track provided a flat background.

10

11

 

.mgmumadmw 93 mo msfismsp oSmEonom: .H musmflm

12

An additional piece of apparatus (Figure 2) was a frame in
which an 8 X10 inch target could be placed. The tip of a movable
indicator just below the bottom of the target moved along a ruler
located behind the bottom of this target.

Acuity testing was done with a "tumbling E" acuity chart.

A total of twelve black and white table top photographs
(eight 8 X8 inch and four 4 X 4 inch prints) were used. All
pictures (Figure 3) contained a small critical item, a black rec-
tangle, in the foreground with two large items (a tree and a hill
adjacent to eachother) in the background. These twelve pictures
were divided into four sets, each containing two large, comparison
prints and one small, standard print. One of the comparison prints
of each set contained the critical item in the left foreground, while
the other one contained it in the right foreground. All of the small,
standard prints contained the critical item in the center foreground.
In the first set (Set I), all pictures contained the large background
items on the right. Set 11 was a mirror-image reversal of Set I
(made by reversing the negative). Set III was the same as Set I
except that a highway running symmetrically from the center fore -
ground to the center background had been added. Set IV also was
the same as Set I except that the pictures had been cropped along

the foreground in such a manner as to bring the foreground to a

13

£030on 39:02.3: 8:3 .830: mugofim: .m ouswrm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i I
- SetI '
i I
I I
Set II
I i i
I l
I I
- 1 SM 1 "
I I i
V Set IV V

Figure 3. --Targets used in study (schematic).

15

point in the center. For convenience, the large, comparison print
in each set which contains the critical item on the left side will be
designated LS and the one which contains it on theright will be

designated RS.

Procedure

 

S came in and was seated in a cubicle in one end of the
room. There he was given three sighting tasks: looking through a
plastic tube, lining up a pencil with another pencil held by E, and
sighting his nose in a 1 —inch circle drawn on a mirror. E noted
which eye-was used for each of the tasks.

E then took S out of the room via the door through which he
had entered and told him to go around to the other end of the room.
E met S at the door at the other end and gave him the acuity test
(no subjects were eliminated by the test, but two were sent home
to get their glasses).

Next, S put an eye patch over his nondominant eye while E
adjusted the headrest to align the dominant eyewith the hole in the
screen. E asked the subject if he could see both targets and gave
him the following instructions:

Your job in this experiment is to move the large picture by
means of these two control knobs until the black rectangular

object in the large picture appears to be the same distance
away as the same black object in the small picture. Remember,

16
your‘task: is simply to make the two black objects appear to be
the same distance awayunot necessarily the same size.
If the subject asked a question such as, ”Equally far away from
what?" he was told the following:
Well, pretend that this is a real -life scene-and you are standing
somewhere along the foreground looking at it. In this case,
how far away would the objects be?

E then gave the subjects four practice trials on each of two
practice sets. These practice prints were pictures of houses
(different in each set) in a suburban setting, and each had a black
critical item in the foreground.

After the last practice trial, E began the test trials. Four
trials were given on each of the eight comparison pictures for a total
of thirty -two trials. The method used was, of course, the method of
adjustment with different ascending and descending starting points
each time. The order of presentation was random, with the restric-
tion that all eight of the comparison prints had to appear once before
any could appear for the second time. The same was true of the
succeeding rounds of presentation. Ascending and descending trials
were counterbalanced by having ascending trials on the first round,
descending on the second, descending on the third, and ascending
trials on the last round. E recorded, to the nearest inch, the dis-

tance setting on each trial.

17

. Upon completion of the distance settings, E again seated S

in the cubicle at the other end of the room. E sat in the other chair

and faced S at a distance of about 3 feet. The walls of the cubicle

were painted black and the two chairs were the only objects inside

it.

E then told S that he would read ten proverbs to him and

that his task was simply to tell, in his own words, what each meant.

These proverbs were:

1.

2.

10.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Still waters run deep.

The early bird gets the worm.

Rome wasn' t built in a day.

A watched pot never boils.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

A stitch. in time saves nine.

Every cloud has a silverlining.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Before reading each proverb, the experimenter established

eye contact with the subject and then, when S broke contact to reflect

upon the problem, noted the direction of the very first movement.

18

Next, handedness was determined by a questionnaire. Use
of the same hand in seven of the following ten tasks constituted
handedness: combing hair, brushing teeth, writing, hammering a
nail, cutting with a knife, drinking, erasing blackboard, opening
door, throwing ball, and cutting with a scissors.

For‘the last task, the picture holder was brought in and the
eight large prints were placed in it, one at a time. The subjects
were instructed:

Imagine that this is a real scene which you are viewing from
somewhere along the foreground and move the indicator to show

where it would seem most natural for you to be standing.

E recorded the setting for each picture.

RESULTS

Before testing the hypotheses, two dependent measures t
tests were performed between the LS and RS versions of Set I and
between the LS and RS versions of Set 11. This was done to deter-
mine the magnitude and direction of the left-right differences which
had been achieved across all subjects. In Set I, there was a non-
significant tendency (t = 1. 22, df = 54) for the critical object to
appear closer when on the left side than when on the right side. In
Set II, there was a tendency in the opposite direction, i. e. , for the
critical objects to appear closer when on the right than when on the
left, but this just missed significance (t = 1. 98, df = 54).

To test Hypothesis 1, two Pearson product -moment cor-
relations were computed between the Ss performance on the track
and their indicator settings. First, the subjects' RS settings on
Set I were subtracted from their LS settings on that set. A corre-
lation was computed between this score and the scores for Set I on
the indicator placement (the sum of the LS and RS versions). The
same was done with Set II. Neither correlation proved to be sig -

nificant.

19

20

An Analysis of Variance (Table 1) using the data from the
indicator settings was performed to test Hypothesis II (a). The
relevant factor here is sets, and this proved to be significant
(F = 5. 51, p < . 01). A Newman-Keuls test showed a significant
difference between all pairs of sets with Set IV producing the greatest
leftward bias, Set I producing a slight leftward bias, Set III having a
slight rightward bias, and Set II having the greatest rightward bias.
The means of the four sets were 8. 82, 9. 72, 9. 94, and 10. 35
respectively, with 9. 88 being the expected mean under conditions of
no directional bias. Thus the leftward bias of Set I, the rightward
bias of Set II, and the fact that Set 111 has the smallest directional
bias agree with Hypothesis II (a). However, Set IV, which was
expected to have an effect similar to Set III, instead showed the

greatest directional bias of all.

Table 1. --Analysis of Variance (Indicator Settings)

 

 

 

Source of Variance SS df MS F
Sets 34. 5 3 11.51 5. 51
Laterality 2. 3 1 2 32 38
Subjects 105. 5 54 1. 95 .77
SetsX Lat 9.3 3 3.08 1.22
Sets X Sub 338.1 162 2.09

LatX Sub 332.2 54 6.15

Sets X Lat X Sub 408. 1 162 2. 52

 

 

 

 

 

21

Hypothesis II (b) was tested by means of a t test comparing
the mean left-right difference in Set I plus that of Set 11 with the
same combined mean differences of Sets 111 and IV. This test
revealed a nonsignificant tendency (t = 1. 00, df = 54) for the left-
right differences in Sets III and IV to be smaller than those of Sets I
and II.

Hypothesis III concerned handedness and III (a) was tested
by dividing the subjects into right and left -handers by the criterion
described earlier. The n of the left -handed group was 8 and that of
the right ~handed group was 44, with a remainder of 3 subjects who
did not fit into either group. Scores were assigned to the subjects
by subtracting each subject' 3 RS score from his LS score for Set I.
A t test yielded a nonsignificant difference between the two groups
(t = 1. 30, 8 df = 50). III (b) was tested by doing the same with the
pictures of Set II, and there a significant relationship (t = 1. 71,
df = 50, p < .05) was found.

The effects of sighting dominance (Hypothesis IV (a)) were
analyzed in a similar manner, with the RS scores from Sets I and 11
being subtracted from the LS scores. Subjects were divided into
left and right sighters according to the eye used on a majority of the

sighting tasks. No significant difference was found in either case;

22

the t for Set I was -1. 41 with 53 df, and the t for Set II was 1. 21 with
53 df.

As a further test of IV (b), the subjects were divided into
males, females, right handers, left handers, right handed males and
right handed females and the right and—left movers within these sub-
groups were compared in the same manner as before- For Set I,
within the subgroup Females the. left movers had a greater tendency
than the right movers to perceive the critical object as closer when
in the left foreground than when in the right foreground (t = 1. 92,
df = 28, p < . 10). The same was true within the subgroups Right
Handers (t = 1. 98, df = 40, p < . 10) and Right Handed Females
(t = 2.02, df= 21, p< .10).

Thus, Hypothesis 111 (b) was supported, Hypotheses II (a)
and IV (b) received partial support, and Hypotheses I, II (b), III (a),

and IV (a) were not supported.

DISCUSSION

Many previous studies of lateral asymmetry in pictures have
variedwthe size and depth of the critical object as well as the position
of the background objects. The present study, for the most part,
used the same configuration of fore- and background items through-
out the various sets while making a somewhat different sort of
manipulation.

The present study. was designed to take a closer look at the
concept of phenomenal nearness by asking whether some of the same
logical extensions of metric nearness could be applied to phenomenal
nearness. Specifically, it was thought that if the left foreground of a
picture appears closer than the right foreground, thenlogically an
observer should perceive his imaginary standpoint in the picture
space as closer to. the left than to the right side. If this is true, then
any manipulation which reduces the» leftward displacement of this
standpoint should also reduce the sideward effects in the picture.

Although the results gave some support to the idea that
observers displace their imaginary standpoints to the right orleft

depending upon the composition of the picture, the failure of these

23

24

displacements to correlate with the size of the sideward effects casts
doubt upon the rest of the argument.

It seems probable that handedness and position of background
items both produce similar results. For example, in the case of
right -handers viewing Set I (background object on the right) or left-
handers viewing Set II (background object on left), the two factors
tend to summate and strengthen the sideward effect while the other
two combinations tend to cancel each other out.

Also, the fact that handedness was significantly related to
the one picture but not to the other is reminiscent of a finding by
Swartz and Hewitt (1970). In their study, subjects were shown
20 pairs (original and mirror ~image reversal) of pictures and were
asked to indicate their preference in each pair. While handedness
showed no overall relationship to original vs. reversed preferences,
there was a relationship of this sort with certain pictures.

Although the correlations between direction of eye move-
ments and sideward effects were suggestive, a serious consideration
of these relations would have to await replication. The technique
used in analyzing this part of the data was essentiallyexploratory;
it was necessary to perform numerous t tests on basically the same
set of data because of our ignorance of just where the relationships
should lie. However, this greatly increased the likelihood of a

Type I error.

25

The overall difference between the LS and RS versions of
Set I (background, item on the left), while not significant, was at least
in the same direction as that of previous work in this area. Further,
the reversal of direction occurring with Set II (backgrounditem on
the right) is similar to the findings of the two other studies in which
some of the pictures contained thelarge background items on the
left. The studies of Bartley and De Hardt and Ranney and Bartley
both achieved this reversal, and in one case (Ranney and Bartley) it
was strong enough to be statistically significant.

As mentioned earlier, Gaffron contends that for centuries
artists have placed in the left foreground those items upon which they
want primary attention focused. The studies of Bartley and De Hardt
andRanney-and Bartley as well as the present study indicate another
correspondence between traditional practice and sideward effects:
those relationships between critical and backgrounditems which pro-
duce the maximum perceptual nearness of the critical item are the
same as those which-would be dictated by traditional rules of good
”balance" or "composition. " When a small foreground item and a
large background item are to be essentially the only two items in the
picture, it would be rare for an artist to put them both on the same
side of the picture. Likewise, the maximum perceptual nearness of

the critical object is not achieved when they are on the same side.

26

The fact that Set II did not appear nearer than all the other
sets presents a contrastto the results of a study by Bartley (1959).
He found that cropping away part of the surround from the Critical
item while holding overall print size constant did cause the print to
appear nearer. This differenceris to be expected, since the crop-
ping in the present study was less uniform and extensive in nature
and, more importantly, did not hold overall printsize constant. In
light of some of the comments from the subjects, these differences
seem to have been crucial. Many reported that Set IV seemed to
represent an attempt to trick them and that they subjectively added
back onto the picturethat part which had been. cropped.

The fact that a larger difference was not achievedin the
original phenomenon (LS -RS differences in Sets I and II) is more
difficult to explain. One possible reason is that the ground rose
somewhat more rapidly. in going from foreground to horizon than
in the pictures used in previous research of this type. Thus one
inadvertent finding of this study may be that this factor tends to
reduce the sideward effects.

As yet, little is known about how this phenomenon of
sideward differences relates to other perceptual laws and phenomena.
In looking for an overall schema into which this phenomenon might

fit, one is tempted to consider work such as that of Luneberg (1950)

27

and Blank (1958), which has shown something about the distortions
inherent in visual space. Their work has attempted to find the
functions relating metric space to visual space. While they have
shown visual space to deviate considerably from metric space, it is
pictured as bilaterally symmetrical. However, their experimenta-
tion used simple light points in a dark, impoverished background,
and this may have been responsible for their finding symmetry in
visual space.

An important caution, though, in attempting to relate these
two lines of investigation to each other is the fact that we do not yet
know whether these sideward differences occur when an actual
three -dimensional scene is viewed or whether these differences
occur only as the result of the reduction of a three -dimensional
scene to a two -dimensional representation. Investigation of this

question is an important area for future research.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adair, H. J. , and Bartley, S. H. Nearness as a function of lateral
orientation in pictures.

Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1958, 8, 135-141.

Bakan, P. Hypnotizability, laterality of eye movements, and

functional brain asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1969, 2_8, 927-932.

Bakan, P. , and Shotland, R. Lateral eye movement, reading speed,

and visual attention. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 15 (2),
93-94.

Bartley, S. H. Some comparisons between print size, object

position, and object size in producing phenomenal distance.
Journal of Psycholcgy, 1959, 48, 347 -351.

Bartley, S. H. , and De Hardt, D. C. A further factor determining
nearness as a function of lateral orientation in pictures.
Journal. of Psycholfl, 1960, 50, 53 -57.

Bartley, S. H. , and Thompson, R. A. A further study of horizontal
asymmetry in the perception of pictures. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1959, 9, 135-138.

Blank, A. A. Analysis of experiments in visual space perception.

Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1958, 48, 911-
925.

Day, M. E. An eye movement phenomenon relating to attention,

thought and anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964,
E, 443 -446.

Gaffron, M. Right and left in pictures. Art Quarterly, 1950, 1_3_,
312 -331.

28

29

Gaffron, M. Phenomenal properties and perceptual organizations.
In Koch, S. , ed. Psycholofigy: A Study ofa Science, Vol. 4,
1962, McGraw-Hill, New York.

 

Luneberg, R. K. The metric of binocular visual space. Journal
of the Optical Society of America, 1950, 40, 627 -642.

 

Ranney, J. E. , and Bartley, S. H. A further study of phenomenal
distance in plane targets perceived as three dimensional
scenes. Journal of Psychology, 1963, a, 19-27.

 

KB 26 1371

 

‘v

STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

III III!” I

MICHIGAN
3

1293 030L5 4511