Abstract
A nulling procedure was used to estimate the size of a stimulus which moved back and forth in depth from a distance of 5 to 30 ft from the observer. This was compared to a condition where the target was positioned statically from 5 to 30 ft away, with size estimates made by varying a comparison stimulus. Both conditions were run with monocular and binocular viewing. For static presentation, constancy was maintained throughout with binocular vision, but it finally broke down monocularly at a 30-ft viewing distance. For the dynamic presentation, there was a pronounced regression toward visual angle under both binocular and monocular observation. The basis for this unanticipated finding was fully discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Boring, E. G. The moon illusion. American Journal of Physics, 1943, 2, 55–60.
Boring, E. G. Visual perception as invariance. Psychological Review, 1952, 59, 141–148.
Brosgole, L. An analysis of induced motion. Acta Psychologica, 1968, 28, 1–44.
Gibson, J. J. The visual field and the visual world: A reply to Professor Boring. Psychological Review, 1952, 59, 149–151.
Holway, A. H., & Boring, E. G. Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. American Journal of Psychology, 1941, 54, 21–37.
Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brosgole, L., McNichol, D.G., Doyle, J. et al. Dynamic size constancy. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 7, 12–14 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337106
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337106