Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T06:47:53.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological Experiments and Phenomenal Experience in Size and Shape Constancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Gary Hatfield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some experiments in perceptual psychology measure perceivers’ phenomenal experiences of objects versus their cognitive assessments of object properties. Analyzing such experiments, this article responds to Pizlo’s claim that much work on shape constancy before 1985 confused problems of shape ambiguity with problems of shape constancy. Pizlo fails to grasp the logic of experimental designs directed toward phenomenal aspects of shape constancy. In the domain of size perception, Granrud’s studies of size constancy in children and adults distinguish phenomenal from cognitive factors.

Information

Type
Cognitive and Psychological Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 5 , December 2014 , pp. 940 - 953
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Thanks to Uljana Feest, Mazviita Chirimuuta, and Eric Schwitzgebel for comments at PSA12 and the members of the Seminar on Experimental Psychology and Phenomenology, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, for discussion of a subsequent version.

References

Berkeley, George. 1709. An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision. Dublin: Rhames & Papyat.Google Scholar
Boring, Edwin G. 1942. Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Epstein, William, Bontrager, Helen, and Park, John. 1962. “The Induction of Nonveridical Slant and the Perception of Shape.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 63:472–79.10.1037/h0044054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, William, Hatfield, Gary, and Muise, Gerard. 1977. “Perceived Shape at a Slant as a Function of Processing Time and Processing Load.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3:473–83.Google Scholar
Granrud, Carl E. 2004. “Visual Metacognition and the Development of Size Constancy.” In Thinking and Seeing: Visual Metacognition in Adults and Children, ed. Levin, Daniel T., 75–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Daniel T. 2012. “Judging the Size of a Distant Object: Strategy Use by Children and Adults.” In Visual Experience: Sensation, Cognition, and Constancy, ed. Hatfield, Gary and Allred, Sarah, 13–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 2012. “Phenomenal and Cognitive Factors in Spatial Perception.” In Visual Experience: Sensation, Cognition, and Constancy, ed. Hatfield, Gary and Allred, Sarah, 35–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199597277.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Gary, and Epstein, William. 1979. “The Sensory Core and the Medieval Foundations of Early Modern Perceptual Theory.” Isis 70:363–84.10.1086/352281CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hershenson, Maurice. 1999. Visual Space Perception: A Primer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leibowitz, Herschel, and Bourne, L. E.. 1956. “Time and Intensity as Determiners of Perceived Shape.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 51:277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marr, David. 1982. Vision: Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Pizlo, Zygmunt. 2008. 3D Shape: Its Unique Place in Visual Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7705.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pizlo, Zygmunt, Sawada, Tadamasa, Li, Yunfeng, Kropatsch, Walter G., and Steinman, Robert M.. 2010. “New Approach to the Perception of 3D Shape Based on Veridicality, Complexity, Symmetry and Volume.” Vision Research 50:1–11.10.1016/j.visres.2009.09.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Thomas. 1785. An Inquiry into the Human Mind. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Bell & Creech.Google Scholar
Rivers, W. H. R. 1900. “Vision.” In Text-Book of Physiology, Vol. 2, ed. E. A. Schäfer, 1026–1148. Edinburgh: Pentland.Google Scholar
Rock, Irvin. 1975. Introduction to Perception. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stavrianos, Bertha K. 1945. “The Relation of Shape Perception to Explicit Judgments of Inclination.” Archives of Psychology 296:1–94.Google Scholar
Sully, James. 1892. The Human Mind: A Text-Book of Psychology. 2 vols. New York: Appleton.10.1037/12967-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thouless, Robert H. 1931. “Phenomenal Regression to the ‘Real’ Object.” Pt. 1. British Journal of Psychology 21:339–59.Google Scholar
Thouless, Robert H. 1932. “Phenomenal Regression to the ‘Real’ Object.” Pt. 2. British Journal of Psychology 22:1–30.Google Scholar
Wagner, Mark. 2006. The Geometries of Visual Space. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar