↓ Skip to main content

Independence of Size and Distance in Binocular Vision

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Independence of Size and Distance in Binocular Vision
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00988
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nam-Gyoon Kim

Abstract

For too long, the size distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH) has been the prevalent explanation for size perception. Despite inconclusive evidence, the SDIH has endured, primarily due to lack of suitable information sources for size perception. Because it was derived using the geometry of monocular viewing, another issue is whether the SDIH can encompass binocular vision. A possible alternative to SDIH now exists. The binocular source of size information proposed by Kim (2017) provides metric information about an object's size. Comprised of four angular measures and the interpupillary distance (IPD), with the explicit exclusion of egocentric distance information, Kim's binocular variable demands independence of perceived size and perceived distance, whereas the SDIH assumes interdependence of the two percepts. The validity of Kim's proposed information source was tested in three experiments in which participants viewed a virtual object stereoscopically then judged its size and distance. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants' size judgments were more accurate and less biased than their distance judgments, a finding further reinforced by the results of partial correlation analyses, demonstrating that perceived (stereoscopic) size and distance are independent, rather than interdependent as the SDIH assumes. Experiment 3 manipulated participants' IPDs, one component of Kim's proposed variable. Size and distance judgments were overestimated under a diminished IPD, but underestimated under an enlarged IPD, a result consistent with predictions based on participants' utilization of the proposed information source. Results provide unequivocal evidence against the SDIH as an account of size perception and corroborate the utility of Kim's proposed variable as a viable alternative for the binocular visual system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Psychology 2 13%
Computer Science 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 9 60%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,630,234
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,602
of 30,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,121
of 328,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#608
of 711 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 711 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.