October 2020
Volume 20, Issue 11
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   October 2020
A Comparison Between the Use of Afterimages and Physical Stimuli in the Examination of Size Constancy
Author Affiliations
  • Amy Siobhan Millard
    La Trobe University, Australia
  • Irene Sperandio
    University of East Anglia, United Kingdom
  • Philippe A. Chouinard
    La Trobe University, Australia
Journal of Vision October 2020, Vol.20, 925. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.925
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Amy Siobhan Millard, Irene Sperandio, Philippe A. Chouinard; A Comparison Between the Use of Afterimages and Physical Stimuli in the Examination of Size Constancy. Journal of Vision 2020;20(11):925. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.925.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Size constancy is the ability to perceive an object as having a fixed size regardless of viewing distance. Laws of geometry provide exact guidelines for how size-distance scaling operates in humans under optimal viewing conditions. Most research on size constancy has used objects that exist in the external environment as stimuli, however, some studies have used afterimages as an alternative. Unlike physical objects, afterimages are a unique subjective experience, so it is unknown if these methodological approaches are comparable. This study (N = 20) examined the size perception of physical objects and afterimages under binocular, monocular, and darkness viewing conditions across ten distances (for a total of 30 trials for each stimulus type). The procedures for the two experiments were designed to be as identical as possible. We calculated the slope of the change in perceived size of the stimuli over viewing distance and then computed how much this slope deviated from the hypothetical slope predicted by a size-distance scaling law known as Emmert’s law. ANOVA revealed that the different viewing conditions affected the degree to which size deviated from this law for both afterimages (F(2,38) = 145.42, p < .0001), and physical stimuli (F(2,38) = 15.46, p < .0001). Paired-samples t-tests highlighted that size perception of afterimages and physical stimuli differed in the monocular (p = .02) and darkness (p < .0001) conditions, but not in the binocular (p = .77) condition. Our findings show that perceived size closely reflected the size-distance scaling predictions under ideal viewing conditions for both methods. This study provides the first direct comparison of how these two approaches for examining size constancy operate. It is suggested that afterimage research paradigms are comparable to methods that use physical stimuli under ideal viewing conditions and may provide unique benefits to understanding what drives size constancy.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.