’ V
I

l
HI‘

,1

i
l

l

m,»,wm;n

’ W

W fu

’1!
H

,_

fl
2!

|
Is!

'1'!‘

W

1

—l
—.l
00

 

I—' —‘
I 4>~
lm O)

PHENOJx’sEE‘iAL EESTAHCE Q? l-faifJGROUND AND
BACKGROUND 175833 (R {MPOVERES‘HED PHC'YOGRAPHS

Thesis for “the CGfiI’GS of M. A.
MECMGAN STATE in‘il'v'Ei-ZSITY
Ray 'Wyzafi' W’inf‘ers
19.56

13.31::

    
    

  

LIBRARY

Michigan Stare
University

, u r

ABSTRACT

PHENOMENAL DISTANCE OF MIDGROUND AND BACKGROUND
ITEMS IN IMPOVERISHED PICTURES

By Ray Wyatt Winters

A number of studies have indicated that, under
certain conditions, an item will appear to be closer
when shown on the left side of a photographic print than
when appearing, at a metrically equal distance, on the
right side. Typically, these studies have: 1. employed
pictures which displayed a large number of stimulus
depth cues; 2. used pictures in which the critical item
appeared in either the foreground or the midground.

Using impoverished photographs (prints with only a
few stimulus depth cues), the purpose of the present
study was to determine if a left—right imbalance occurs
when the critical object is large and appears in the
midground; or when the critical object is small and
appears in the background.

Twelve subjects, who met both a 20/20 visual
acuity criterion and a criterion of variability in a
practice series, were asked to match the phenomenal distance
of a critical object in a large print to the phenomenal
distance of the same object in a small one. The subject
accomplished this task by varying the viewing distance of

the large print. This procedure was repeated for a total of

twelve large—small print combinations.

Ray Wyatt Winters

The results of the study tend to indicate that:
l. A large object appears to be closer when shown in the
midground of a print in which it is positioned on the
left than in the mirror image of this print. 2. A left—
right imbalance does not occur when the critical object is
small and appears in the background. This is true when:
1. It is the only object in the scene. 2. A large
object also appears in the background. 3. A large object

appears in the foreground.

(A!) \Dkfi—R
Approved By: 45.7.47 # R ‘L.\

\
Date: 6-4», (7(17éé

PHENOMENAL DISTANCE OF MIDGROUND AND BACKGROUND

ITEMS IN IMPOVERISHED PHOTOGRAPHS

By

Ray Wyatt Winters

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1966

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. S. Howard Bartley‘s support and assistance in
this endeavor have been invaluable. Also, I wish to
thank Dr. Charles Hanley and Dr. Donald M. Johnson for

reading and criticizing the manuscript.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
RESULTS AND DUSCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of analysis of variance based on the
scores for each subject for four print sets . . 15

iv

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Schematic drawing of the apparatus . . .

Schematic drawings of A x A and 8 x 8 prints
used in the study . . . . . . . . .

Graph showing mean distances for set 1 . .
Graph showing mean distances for set 2 . .
Graph showing mean distances for set 3 . .

Graph showing mean distances for set A . .

Page

10

ll
17
17
l9
l9

INTRODUCTION

Phenomenal distance is defined as the apparent
nearness of an object in the visual field. Recently,
investigators have been concerned with stimulus variables
of relevance to the study of phenomenal distance.

In studies using photographs, print size has been
shown to be a variable that determines apparent nearness
of an object in the visual field. Bartley and Adair
(3), employing a psychophysical matching technique,
found that as print size increased, apparent nearness of
various objects in the visual field increased. Thompson
and Bartley (21) in a later study confirmed these results.

In a study conducted by Bartley (2), two methods of
enlarging the figure size of a critical object (the object
whose distance was judged), were examined. In one set of
pictures, figure size was increased by a standard enlarging
procedure. In a second set of photographs, figure size
was varied by print cropping. Both methods were found to
be equally effective in changing the phenomenal distance
of the critical object. The results corroborated those
obtained in earlier studies (3, 21).

Viewing distance (i.e., distance from the S to a
target) has also been shown to be related to phenomenal

distance.

A series of studies (1A, 15, 16, 17) indicates that
the depth of the visual field is an increasing monotonic
function of viewing distance. These studies also show
that estimates of height and size of various items in
photographs remains constant over varying distances
between the S and the target.

In another series of studies (7, 19, 20), in which
the Howard-Dolman apparatus for studying distance judgment
was employed, it was demonstrated that the linear
threshold of equality of judgment was an increasing mono-
tonic function of viewing distance.

Bartley and Adair (3), using a psychophysical
matching technique, showed that as the distance between a
standard target and a S increased, a concurrent increase
in the distance between the S and variable target had to
occur in order for the PSE to remain constant. This
substantiates studies cited earlier (1A, 15, 16, 17).

On the basis of their research, Thompson and
Bartley (21) suggest that higher order stimulus variables
may bare a relationship to phenomenal distance of critical
objects. In their study, the apparent nearness of a man
shown in a photograph was found to be related to the
direction in which that man was facing. Even though
metrically equal in distance, a man appeared to be closer
when facing the S than when facing in a direction opposite

to the subject.

A large body of research suggests that apparent
distance is also determined by the lateral position of
various objects in the visual field. One of the first
investigators to recognize this fact was Gaffron (8).

Her subjects were asked to compare classical paintings
with their mirror images. They reported that there were
differences in the subjective impressions between the
two sets of paintings. One difference was that items

in the left of the visual field, under certain conditions,
appeared to be closer than when appearing on the right
(i.e., in the mirror images). Gaffron suggests that the
better artists have, at least implicitly, noticed that
the left and right halves of the visual field function
differently and have utilized this difference to produce
desired effects in their paintings.

Recent studies have attempted to quantify left-
right differences by using a psychophysical matching
technique. Adair and Bartley (1) using five scenes and
their mirror images, in which a large object appeared
either in the foreground or midground, found that objects
appeared to be closer when placed in the left of the
photograph. The greater the asymmetry in the scenes, the
more pronounced this left-right imbalance became.

Bartley and Thompson (6), employing the same
psychophysical technique, confirmed the results of the

Adair and Bartley study. In this investigation, a man was

seen in the midground at various positions in the left and
right halves of the field. The man appeared to be closer
when on the left than when on the right side of the picture;
the left-right imbalance was enhanced with increasing
degrees of asymmetry.

Current literature offers very little explanation
of the results of experiments involving the lateral
position variable. It could be argued that differential
effects are related to what have classically been referred
to as "depth cues" or what Gibson (10) refers to as
"gradients of stimulation." If this is true, some of the
studies cited are not comparable because: 1. different
types of stimulus conditions which are necessary for the
perception of depth, were used, i.e., different types of
visual depth cues; 2. differing numbers of depth perception
stimulus conditions were used, i.e., some studies used
pictures in which a few depth cues appeared while other
studies used pictures with a large number of depth cues.

There is some research that suggests that phenomenal
distance is not related to variations in depth inducing
stimulus conditions.

Smith (15) altered Gibson's stake photographs in
order to determine what stimulus conditions are critical
for accurate distance judgment. Three sets of photographs
were used in the study: appearing in one set of pictures

were fully detailed (texture and shadows) fields; in

another set, only stakes and their shadows were shown; in
a third set, the field was impoverished so only the stand-
ard and variable stakes could be seen. 88 followed the
procedure used in the classical studies of Gibson (10).
Distance judgments were found to be equally accurate with
the three stimulus conditions. Smith suggests that the
critical "cue" involved is the subject's knowledge of the
height of the camera.

In a study performed by Smith, Smith and Hubbard
(17), 83 were asked to compare, (by ratio judgments of
distances), five pictures of the same corridor. The
pictures differed in amount of detail and shadowing; some
pictures were photographs of the corridor, others were
drawings. Ratio judgments were not found to be related
to the differences in the degree of impoverishment in the
pictures.

Teichner, Kobrick, and Dusek (19), using a standard
psychopysical matching procedure for examining distance
judgment in a three dimensional field, concluded that
variations in terrains of the fields used did not systema-
tically change distance judgment. Teichner, Kobrick, and
Wehkamp (20), employing the same method, also found that
terrain textual differences and distance judgments were
not related.

The earlier mentioned studies of Adair and Bartley
(l) and Bartley and Thompson (6), using photographs in

which a large number of depth inducing stimulus conditions

existed, found that a large midground item appeared closer
when appearing on the left than when on the right. It

would be expected that this difference will also occur

 

where the depth inducing properties of a photograph are

few in number.

 

Recent research indicates that there are other
factors that determine subjective differences between
the left and right havles of the visual field.

Gogel (11) has demonstrated that the phenomenal
distance of a small critical object is affected by the
presence of larger objects appearing in the field. A
large square was found to affect the apparent nearness
of a small disc when the two figures were relatively
distant to one another.

The importance of large items in determining the
apparent nearness of smaller items in the field of
vision has been demonstrated by two recent studies (5, 13).
In both investigations, phenomenal distances of a small
block in the foreground were compared when both the
lateral position of the block and the lateral position of
trees in the background were varied. The small block
appeared to be closer when placed on the left only when
the trees appeared on the right. Thus, larger background
items affect the phenomenal distance of small foreground

items.

In the same two studies (5, 13), it was also shown
that large foreground objects appear to be closer than
small foreground objects which are placed in the same
position in the photograph. It seems that the left-
right imbalance of a small foreground item is determined
by the presence of a large background object whereas the
apparent nearness of a large foreground item is independent
of other items present in the field (13).

Bartley and DeHardt (A) find that, under certain
conditions, a left—right imbalance does not occur when
the critical object appears in the background. Appearing
in the photographs used in their study was a small
critical object in the background and a large object in
the foreground. They conclude that the left—right
imbalance for the background item does not occur for this
set of stimulus conditions. a

Although a large number of stimulus depth cues
appeared in the photographs used by DeHardt and Bartley,

it would be predicted that the same results would be

 

observed when improverished pictures are used. Because

 

no left-right differences were observed in the DeHardt and

Bartley study when a large object appeared in the foreground,

 

it would not be expected that differences will result when
a metrically smaller object is placed in the background.
Bartley and DeHardt (5) suggest that the appearance

of a large item in the visual field is critical to the

occurance of left—right differences in photographs. A
small critical object appears to be closer when on the
left only when a larger item is shown in the scene. This
predication is substantiated by several studies (5, 13).

If this assertion is correct, it would be predicted that

 

an item on the leftwwould appear to be equally distant to

 

an item on the rightfiwhen the onlyfiitem in a scene is a

 

small background object.

 

To summarize, using impoverished photographs, the
following hypotheses will be tested in the present study:
I. A large midground item will appear to be
closer when located on the left than when located on the

right of a scene.

II. There will not be a left-right imbalance when
the critical object is a small object appearing in the
background. This will be true when: l. the small
object is the only item in the visual field; 2. when a
large item is located in the foreground; 3. when a large

item appears in the background.

METHOD

Subjects

Twelve students (11 males and one female), in an
introductory experimental psychology course at Michigan

State University, served as subjects.

Apparatus

 

The apparatus shown in Figure 1, consisted of an
adjustable carriage mounted on a 275 inch calibrated
track; a stationary target holder for a A x A print,
positioned to the right of this; and a chin rest placed
behind, and to the right of a blind. Because of this
structure, observations were made with only the right eye.

Placed on the carriage was a target holder for an
8 x 8 print. Turning a knob positioned to the left of
the S, moved this print along the track. Targets were
seen against a flat black background with diffuse over-
head lighting.

A total of 1A black and white photographs (eight
8 x 8 and six A x A prints) were used in the study. The
photographs, as shown in Figure 2, for the purpose of
experimental presentation, were divided into four sets
(combinations of large and small prints).

Set 1 consisted of two large and one small print.
Shown in the prints was a large block in the midground.

In the two large prints, the block either appeared at the

9

lO

 

 

 

\I

 

 

 

 

 

 

D '-)

 

 

3% W
A

.mdpMmeQ< map mo wcfizmsp OHBBEmnomlt.H madmam

s7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

Set 1 Set 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Set 2 Set A

 

 

I
i
T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T

 

t; ———*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.--Schematic drawings of A x A standard prints
and 8 x 8 variable prints used in the study.

l2

extreme left or at the extreme right. In the small print,
it was shown in the center of the picture. There were
two large—small print combinations in this set.

Appearing in the background of Set 2, were a small
and large block. In the two large prints, the small and
large blocks always were shown on Opposite sides (to the
extreme right or the extreme left). In the two small
prints, the small block always appeared in the center of
the background; the large block was seen either to the
extreme right or the extreme left of center. Hence, there
were four combinations of large and small prints in this
set.

Set 3 was the same as Set 2 except the large block
appeared in the foreground. There were four possible
print combinations in this set.

A small block in the background was the only figure
in Set A. In the two large pictures, it either appeared
on the extreme right or the extreme left. In the small
print, it appeared in the center of the background.

In describing the targets, F, M, B refer to the
vertical position of a particular block; L, C, R, refer
to the lateral position of the block; (C), (N) refer to
whether or not the block designated is the critical one,
i.e., the one whose phenomenal distance is under considera-
tion. Large case letters are used to denote blocks in the

large prints; small case letters are used to denote blocks

13

in the small prints. Hence, LB(N) refers to the large

print in which a large block appears in the left of the
background and a small block in the right of the background;
rf(n) refers to the small print where a large block appears
in the right foreground and a small block appears in the

center of the background.

Procedure

 

Using a "tumbling E" acuity chart, 85 were tested
for visual acuity. Only individuals with acuity of
20/20 or better in the right eye served as 88.

Since Gibson (9) and others have indicated the
necessity of a control for learning in experiments of this
nature, a further criterion for participation was
established.

Subjects were presented with various combinations
of the following practice targets: LM(N), RM(N), lm(n),
rm(n). As in Sets 2, 3, and A, of the main experiment,

a small critical object appeared in the background.

On a given trial, a small print was placed 29 inches
from the S, in the stationary target holder; a large print
was randomly positioned along the calibrated track. S
was seated before the apparatus and given the following
instructions:

This is an experiment in distance judgment. Rest

your chin on the chin rest. Now you should be able
to see the pictures only with your right eye. I

want you to move the large picture with this knob
until this object (the small block) looks as far

lA

away from you as the one in the small picture. The
objects should look the same distance from you, not
the same size. I'll give you several practice trials,
so go ahead and try it.

When a S was uncertain of his task, he was told:
"One subject imagined he was in the scene, and put the
large photograph where he would have to walk the same
distance to get to the objects in the two pictures."

During practice trials and during the main experiment,
Ss were told they could repeat any trial if they were not
satisfied with the match. They were also free to rest
whenever they desired.

A S was permitted to start the main experiment when
the standard deviation of four consecutive matches for
each of the four combinations of prints, was five inches
or less. If this criterion of variability was not met
in 35 minutes, the S was not permitted to participate in
the main experiment. One potential subject was eliminated
on the basis of the criterion.

In the main experiment, the same instructions and
procedure were used. The order of presentation for each
set of target combinations was randomly varied. Four

measurements for each of the twelve picture combinations

were taken.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Using Lindquist's Treatment by Subjects design
(12, p. 160), an analysis of variance for each of the
four sets of prints was made. The results of the
analysis are presented in Table I.

A correlated T test was performed for the data
for print Set 1. The computed T of A.01 was significant
at the .01 level.

An F max test for homogeneity of variance was con-
ducted for each of the four print sets. In no case was
F max large enough to permit rejection of the hypothesis
of homogeneity of variance.

In general, the results tend to confirm the
hypotheses proposed.

Hypothesis I.—-On the basis of several studies (1,

 

6, 15, l7, 19, 20), it was expected that the large block
shown in the midground of prints of Set 1 would appear to
be closer in the large print in which it was shown on the
left than in the mirror image of this print. This
phenomenal difference would be indicated by subjects
positioning the large picture at a greater distance for

the LM(C)-c(c) combination than for the RM(C)-c(c) combinan
tion. Both the F test and the correlated T test, as
indicated in Table I, show this to be the case. (Also

see Figure 3).
15

16

Table l.--Summary of analysis of variance based on the scores
for each subject for four print sets.

Print Set 1. Large Block in Midground

Source SS DE MS F

1. Lateral Position A29.3 l A29.3 16.07*
2. Subjects A,O68.8 ll 369.8A 35.57**
3. Subjects x Position 293.7 11 26.70 2.567
A. Error 251 2A 10.A

TOTAL 5,0u2.8 M7
Print Set 2. Large Block in Background and Small Block in

Background

1. Lateral Position 25A 3 8A 1.20
2. Subjects 13,81A.8 11 1255.89 266.68**
3. Subjects x Position 2,309.2 33 69.97 A90.2**
A. Error 679 1AA A.71

TOTAL 17,057 191
Print Set 3. Large Block in Foreground and Small Block in

Background

1. Lateral Position 192.6A 3 6A.2l 1.297
2. Subjects 9,711.21 11 882.8A l98.39**
3. Subjects x Position 1,655.89 33 50.18 ll.28**
A. Error 6A1 1AA A.A5

TOTAL 12,200.7A 191

Print Set A. Small Block in Background

1. Lateral Position 17 l 17 1.7
2. Subjects 9,651.5 . ll 877.A 53.17**
3. Subjects x Position 105.0 11 9.5 .57
A. Error 397 2A 16.5

TOTAL 10,170.5 A7

* Significant at .01 level

** Significant at .001 level

l7

Aevnhuflzvmq
Aevpauflzvmq

.chomwxomn CH xooao
HHmEm .chosmxomn ca xooan owhma
.m pom pom mmocmpmao QMBZII.: mmswam

m

Bomwmo Q<OHBHmo mo ZOHBHmOm

A

Acvnsquvmm lllll

Aevphufizvmm

 

om

.lmm
.-:m

.umw

:os

 

Ins

.chopw UHE ca xOOHQ owned

.H pom pom moonwamao EmmZII.m mpzwflm

seqouI

Bomhmo A¢OHBHmo mo ZOHBHmom

m A

 

L

I
(\I
N

 

18

Hypothesis II.—-Based on the study of Bartley and

 

DeHardt (A), it was predicted that there would not be a
left—right imbalance when the critical object was small
and appeared in the background of the prints. This was
expected to be true when: l. the small object was the
only item in the field; 2. when it was shown with a
metrically larger object appearing in the background;
3. when a large object appears in the foreground.

Statistically non-significant values of F for each
of the three sets of prints (2, 3, A) in which a small
block in the background was shown, tends to give support
to this hypothesis (See Table I). Because there was a
sizable difference between the means of the print pair
combinations LB(N)-lb(n) and RB(N)-rb(n) and LB(N)-lb(n)
and RB(N)-lb(n) of print Set 2 and print pair combination
LF(N)-rf(n) and RF(N)—rf(n) of Set 3 (2.78, 2.67, and
2.63, respectively), the possibility of a position
variable Operating when a small block in the background
is the critical object, cannot be totally eliminated (See
Figures A, 5, 6). Future research will have to substan-
tiate this assertion before an unequivocal statement can
be made.

Why a left-right imbalance should not be observed
for a small background item, is not immediately apparent.
Perhaps, the answer to the question can be found through
a better understanding of the method employed in the

present study.

l9

Aevehuflzvmq ”Aeveasflzvmmusnu
Acvmalfizvmq ”AcvaIszmmllll

.Ussonmxomn CH xooan
.choswxomn CH xooan HHmEm HHmEm .choswmpog CH xooan ommma
.: pom mo mooCMumHU camZII.o mnzwflm .m pom pom mmocmpmflp GMmZII.m msswam

Bomhmo Q<0H9Hmo mo mZOHBHmOm Bomhmo A¢OHBHmo mo ZOHBHmOm

 

 

 

 

m a m a
. om ..ow
..mo -.mm
..:m --:©
-.om I .100
U
m
mm m we
..os .-os
..NA :NA

 

 

ssuouI

20

As a S moves the large photograph along the
calibrated track, two changes occur. Changing as the
large print's position varies, is the retinal image size
of objects in the visual field. As the distance between
the S and the target is increased, the visual angle
subtended by the large print decreases; hence the retinal
image size of the print becomes smaller. At first, investi-
gators thought that the S matched the visual angles of the
critical object in the small print to the Visual angle of
the critical object in the large print. Several studies,
(2, 3, 6), however, have shown that retinal image size
alone does not determine phenomenal distance.

A second change that occurs with variations in the
distance between the subject and the large print is
perceptual. The apparent depth,or distance between the
foreground of the scene and the critical objecg varies.

As the distance between the S and large print is increased,
this apparent distance (i.e. apparent depth) also increases.
It might be hypothesized that this is sole basis for matchs
made. In view of the instructions given to the S, this
seems to be the most tenable position. If this hypothesis
is accepted it would be assumed that the apparent depth

of the critical object in the small print would be some
fixed value and that the S varies the distance of the large

print until the depth of objects in the two photographs 18

the same. An inference drawn from this hypothesis is that

21

the metric size of the critical object is not a relevent
(stimulus variable. Two studies (5, 13) indicate, however,
that a large object appears to be closer than a small
object shown at the same metric distance. It seems that
phenomenal distance is determined both by retinal image
size and_the apparent depth of the critical object.

Bartley and DeHardt (5) assert that the left—right
imbalance does not occur when: l. a metrically small
object is the only item in the visual field; 2. the
critical object is in the background. From this it can
be inferred that a critical item, when appearing alone
must subtend some minimal visual angle; similarly the
apparent depth of the critical object in the visual
field, must not be beyond some critical value if a left-
right imbalance is to be observed. It is certainly not
coincidental that the crucial factors involved are
retinal image size and apparent depth; the two factors
which were shown to be the co-determiners of phenomenal
distance.

Before any more conclusive statements can be made,
future studies will have to determine: 1. if a left-
right imbalance is observed with a single large background
object; 2. if differential effects result when a single
small object appears in the foreground or when a single

small object appears in the midground.

22

Gaffron (8) hypothesizes that the left—right im-
balance is related to hemispheric dominance in the brain.
If the phenomenon is in.some way related to body asymmetry,
the data obtained when employing the method of the present
study may be biased. The position of the standard print
was always to the right of the S while the comparison
target was always to the left. Ss always varied the
distance of the large picture with the left hand. Observa—
tions were always made with the right eye. A recent study
by Schneider (18) has shown that sensory-tonic data must
be reinterpreted on the basis of similar methodological

biases.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

23

10.

ll.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adair, H., and Bartley, S. H. Nearness as a function
of lateral orientation in pictures. Percept. Mot.
Skills, 1958, 8:135-1Al.

Bartley, S. H. Some comparisons between print size,
object position and object size in producing
phenomenal distance. J. Psychol., 1959, A8:3A7—35l.

Bartley, S. H., and Adair, H. J. Comparisons of
phenomenal distance in photographs of various sizes.

J. Psychol., 1959, A7z289-295.

Bartley, S. H., and DeHardt, D. C. A further factor
determining nearness as a function of lateral
orientation in pictures. J. Psychol., 1960, 50:
53-57.

Bartley, S. H., and DeHardt, D. C. Phenomenal distance
in scenes with independent manipulation of major
and minor items. J. Psychol., 1960, 50:315-322.

Bartley, S. H., and Thompson, R. A further study of
horizontal asymmetry in the perception of pictures.
Percept. Mot. Skills, 1959, 9:135—138.

 

Dusek, E. R., Teichner, W. H., and Kobrick, J. L. The
effects of the angular relationships between the
observer and the base-surround and relative depth-
discrimination. Amer. J. Psychol., 1955, 68:A38—AA3.

Gaffron, M. Right and left in pictures. Art. Quart.,
1950, 13:312-331.

Gibson, E. J. Improvement in perceptual judgment as
a function of controlled practice. Psychol. Rev.,
1950, 50:A0-53.

Gibson, J. J. The Perception of the Visual World.
Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1950.

Gogel, W. C. Perception of the relative distance
position of objects as a function of other objects
in the field of View. J. exp. Psychol., 195A, A7:
335-3A2.

 

2A

12.

13.

1A.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

25

Lindquist, E. F. Design and Analysis of Experiment
in Psychology and Education. Houghton—Mifflin,
Boston, 1953:T" I

 

 

Ranney, J. E., and Bartley, S. H. A further study of
phenomenal distance in plane targets perceived as
three—dimensional scenes. J. Psychol., 1963, 56:
l9-27.

Smith, 0. W. Comparison of apparent depth in a
photograph viewed from two distances. Percept.
Mot. Skills, 1958, 8:79-81.'

Smith, 0. W. Judgments of size and distance in
photographs. Amer._J. Psychol., 1958, 71:529-538.

Smith, 0. W., and Gruber, H. Perception of depth in
photographs. Percept. Mot. Skills, 1958, 8:307-313.

Smith, 0. W., Smith, P. C., and Hubbard, D. Perceived
distance as a function of the method of representing
perspective. Amer. J. Psychol., 1958, 71:662-67A.

Schneider, C. W. Monocular and binocular perception
of verticality and the relationship of ocular
dominance. Submitted for publication to Amer. J.
Psychol., 1966.

Teichner, W. H., Kobrick, J. L., and Dusek, E. R.
Commonplace viewing and depth discrimination. J.
Opt. Soc. Amer., 1955, A5:913—920.

 

 

Teichner, W. H., Kobrick, J. L., and Wehkamp, R. F.
The effects of terrain and observation distance on
relative depth discrimination. Amer. J. Psychol.,
1955. 68 193-208.

Thompson, R. W., and Bartley, S. H. Apparent distance
of material in pictures associated with higher
order meanings. J. Psychol., 1959, A8:353—358.

APPENDIX A

26

APPENDIX I

Scores for each subject on each condition, and mean scores
for each condition.

 

 

r
1:—

 

 

 

 

 

S LF(N)-lf(n) LF(N)vrf(n) RF(N)erf(n) RF(N)-1f(n)
J M. 72.75 76.75 76.00 71.50
M. N. 73.50 71.00 73.75 73.00
D. G. 5A.75 5A.25 69.75 62.25
P. V. 59.75 63.50 57.25 56.00
s. J. 56.50 A9.75 58.00 - 58.25
D E. 70.00 72.00 70.75 71.25
D. 8. 76.25 77.25 72.50 70.75
M. M. 68.50 67.00 75.75 77.50
c. H. 73.00 72.75 73.75 79.75
G. W. 71.75 67.25 73.25 73.00
A. L. 55.50 57.50 56.25 57.00
R._B. 70.25 63.75 66.75 65.25

x 67.00 66.02 68.65 67.94

LB(N)arb(n) LB(N).lb(n) RB(N)«rb(n) RB(N)-lb(n)

J. M. 7A.50 75.50 75.00 75.00
M. N. 69.00 71.00 71.50 67.00
D. G. 70.00 66.50 80.25 79.75
P. V. 60.75 58.25 58.25 58.25
s. J. 52.50 52.75 51.00 5A.75
D. F. 72.50 69.75 72.25 69.25
D. 8. 69.50 69.75 69.75 69.25
M. M. 65.25 7u.00 85.50 88.75
c. H. 76.25 83.75 76.00 76.50
0. M. 75.50 71.75 71.00 73.25
A. L. 5A.75 52.15 53.50 53.00
R._B. 64.75 72.75 74.50 72 50

x 67.10 68.21 69.88 69.77

 

27

28

 

—v v v . _ fir—

LB(C)—cb(c) RB(C)-cb(c) LM(C)—cm(c) RM(C)-cm(c)

 

33>c3613t3c1m+uc13C4
'wtdznzszmtnc4<cnzzz

>4

73.75 7A.75 82.25 80.00

7A.25 71.00 76.50 70.50
72.00 72.00 69.00 70.00
37.00 57.50 65.00 60.50
5A.25 51.00 66.25 59.00
71.25 72.75 72.75 68.75
73.50 73.50 81.50 75.50
90.00 85.00 85.75 76.50
77.75 79.00 62.75 61.25
7A.75 7A.50 75.75 68.50
51.25 5A.00 71.25 6A.25
69.25 70.25 68.00 70.75

69.88 69.60 73.06 68.83

 

...1‘7—.Wx ‘s— V V— ‘ f