Premium
VISUAL SIZE AND FAMILIAR SIZE: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES *
Author(s) -
McKENNELL A. C.
Publication year - 1960
Publication title -
british journal of psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.536
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 2044-8295
pISSN - 0007-1269
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1960.tb00721.x
Subject(s) - psychology , variance (accounting) , perception , subjective constancy , object (grammar) , cognitive psychology , apparent size , sensory cue , visual perception , visual search , visual objects , homogeneous , depth perception , statistics , artificial intelligence , computer science , mathematics , business , accounting , combinatorics , neuroscience
Recent experiments show that, in the absence of distance cues, accurate estimates of the size of familiar objects can be achieved on the basis of memory alone. It is by no means certain, however, that memory is operative in size estimates of familiar objects seen in ordinary perceptual situations, since distance cues normally present are themselves sufficient to mediate the perception of the real sizes of things. In investigating this problem use is made of the characteristic individual differences that occur when subjects are obliged to make use of visual cues to size (i.e. in size estimates of non‐familiar objects). There is also a considerable variance in individual estimates from memory of the size of a familiar object. For a group of subjects data on these two sources of variance can be related to the variance in their visual estimates of the size of a common object. By this means the relative weights accorded to past experience with the object and to present visual cues can be determined. Results suggest that prior knowledge of familiar ‘homogeneous’ objects (occurring environmentally mainly in one standard size) entirely determined the estimate of their size, while even for less familiar and for ‘heterogeneous’ objects there is evidence, in some cases, that non‐visual factors were partly active.