Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156

www.elsevier.com/locate/visres

Visual perception of extent and the geometry of visual space

a,*
John M. Foley , Nilton P. Ribeiro-Filho b, Jos
e A. Da Silva c

a
Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
b
Psychology Institute, Federal University of Rio De Janeiro, Ribeir~ao Preto 14040-901, Brazil
c
Department of Psychology, University of Sao Paulo at Ribeir~ao Preto, RJ 22290-240, Brazil
Received 26 March 2003; received in revised form 8 July 2003

Abstract
The question of how perceived extents are related to the corresponding physical extents is a very old question that has not been
satisfactorily answered. The common model is that perceived extent is proportional to the product of image size and perceived
distance. We describe an experiment that shows that perceived extents are substantially larger than this model predicts. We propose
a model that accounts for our results and a large set of other results. The principal assumption of the model is that, in the com-
putation of perceived extent, the visual angle signal undergoes a magnifying transform. Extent is often perceived more accurately
than the common model predicts, so the computation is adaptive. The model implies that, although the perception of location and
the perception of extent are related, they not related by Euclidean geometry, nor by any metric geometry. Nevertheless, it is possible
to describe the perception of location and extent using a simple model.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Space; Perception; Size; Geometry; Localization

It is a common observation that objects appear
smaller when they are far away from us than when they
are near. This is the most obvious example of the fact
that the perceived size of things does not generally equal
their physical size. It is natural to wonder how the
perceived size depends on physical size and the stimuli
that carry information about space.
The retinal image, which was first correctly described
by Kepler in 1604, decreases in size in proportion to
object distance. That might explain the perceptual
shrinking as distance increases, except that perceived
size changes much less than image size. As long ago as
300 BC, it was noted in Euclid’s Optics that perceived
size does not decrease in proportion to distance (Boring,
1942). Indeed in many well lighted situations perceived
size changes little with distance when distances are short
(Harvey & Leibowitz, 1967).
Distance is also often under-perceived and the mag-
nitude of the error depends on lighting conditions and
available cues. This led to the idea that perceived size
depends on perceived distance, an idea that goes back at
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1-805-893-4303.
E-mail address: foley@psych.ucsb.edu (J.M. Foley).
least to Malebranch in 1674 (Pastore, 1971). This is
sometimes expressed in the following equation:
S 0 ¼ D0 ðS=DÞ; ð1Þ
where S 0 is perceived size, D0 is perceived distance, and S
and D are the corresponding physical magnitudes. In
words, if distance is misperceived, size will be misper-
ceived proportionally and their ratio will always equal
the ratio of physical size to physical distance. For an
object that is straight ahead and subtends an angle of H
at the eye (Fig. 1(A)), S=D ¼ 2 tanðH=2Þ, which for
small angles is approximately equal to H in radians. In
practice one or the other of these expressions is often
substituted for S=D in Eq. (1), so that S 0 is expressed as a
function of D0 and H. The visual angle, H is propor-
tional to retinal image size and both are inversely pro-
portional to distance. Eq. (1) implies that perceived size
will fill the visual angle at the perceived distance. This
model is described in most textbooks on perception. The
purpose of this paper is to show that this common
model is substantially wrong, to describe an alternative
model, to show that the alternative model gives a much
better account of judgments of extent in both dark and
well lighted viewing conditions, and to describe some of

0042-6989/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.visres.2003.09.004
148 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156
Fig. 1. (A) Illustration of the common model of size perception. H is
visual angle (which is proportional to retinal image size), D is physical
distance, S is physical size, D0 is perceived distance, S 0 is perceived size.
Perceived size fills the visual angle at the perceived distance. (B) Il-
lustration of the proposed tangle model. Ri , Rj are the radial distances
to the two points, R0i and R0j are the corresponding visual distances, hi
and hj are the horizontal directions of the two points, Hij is the visual
angle subtended by the two points, H00ij is the effective visual angle for
the computation of size. The dashed line indicates the perceived extent.
its implications for the geometry of visual (perceived)
space.
Although we experience space, any statements that we
make about the percepts of others must be inferred from
their behavior. Matching is a fundamental operation in
perceptual measurement and perceptual matching re-
sponses are generally taken to indicate perceptual mat-
ches. When we ask people to indicate the magnitudes of
their percepts we get answers that are numerically
somewhat different depending on what indicator we use,
e.g., verbal report, pointing with an unseen hand, or
walking blind to where an object was seen, etc. Never-
theless, the indicated magnitudes are usually closely re-
lated to matches. We use verbal reports here. They are
relatively variable, but they are described well by a
model that also describes visual matches well. Although
there are results that have been interpreted to indicate
that perceived distance and extent are sometimes unre-
lated, there is much evidence that they are related when
the viewing situation is normal, there are no direct cues
to extent, the stimulus configuration is constant, and the
same method is used to indicate perceived distance and
perceived extent.
There have been a number of experiments in which
observers made independent judgments of size and dis-
tance. For the most part they do not support Eq. (1),
and they do not lead to any clear alternative either
(Kaufman, 1974; Woodworth & Schlosberg, 1954).
Foley (1968, 1972) had observers adjust the size of the
extent between two points so as to produce a particular
S 0 =D0 ratio, including matches (S 0 =D0 ¼ 1), and directly
judge the ratio of perceived size to perceived distance.
Performed in a dark room with dim point-like lights as
stimuli, these experiments showed that this ratio is
substantially larger than the visual angle in radians and
that the difference increases nonlinearly with the visual
angle. They also showed that, as D0 changes, the same
S 0 =D0 ratio corresponds to the same visual angle. Thus,
for a constant visual angle the ratio of perceived size to
perceived distance is invariant, but the relation is not
that of Eq. (1).
We will consider the more general case of the relation
between perceived size (extent), perceived distance and
visual angle for horizontal extents (see Fig. 1(B)). Given
any two visible points, what is the perceived extent be-
tween them? A generalization of Eq. (1) to this case
yields the following equation:
 0:5
2 2
Sij0 ¼ ðR0i Þ þ ðR0j Þ
2R0i R0j cos Hij ; ð2Þ
where Sij0 is the perceived extent between points i and j,
and R0i , R0j are the perceived radial (egocentric) distances
to the two points and Hij is the visual angle subtended
by the two points. This equation is essentially the
equation for the Euclidean distance between two points
in a plane expressed in polar coordinates; it is a gener-
alization of Eq. (1). The distances here are perceived
and the visual angle is physical. Like Eq. (1) this equa-
tion substantially under predicts perceived extents be-
tween visible points (exocentric extents) with the error
increasing with the visual angle subtended by the
points.
Foley (1991) proposed that the perceived extents
among points viewed binocularly in a dark room is
given by an equation that is similar to Eq. (2), except
that H00 is substituted for H, where H00 is an increasing
function of H. Here we propose a slightly different
version of this transform:
H00ij ¼ Hij þ QHPij ; ð3Þ
where H00ij is the effective angle for computing perceived
size. The perceived extent is given by
 0:5
2 2
Sij0 ¼ ðR0i Þ þ ðR0j Þ
2R0i R0j cos H00ij : ð4Þ
This equation is the result of an extensive search for an
equation that would satisfy the constraints that S 0 =D0 is
invariant for constant H, and S 0 varies with both ori-
entation in the horizontal plane and visual angle, and
also describes perceived extent data obtained in a variety
of contexts. It is important to emphasize that H00ij is not
perceived visual angle.
In order to use this equation to compute the perceived
extent between two points, we need to know their per-
ceived distances. The general relation between physical
and perceived distance is complex and only partially
 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156 149

known. What makes it complex are context effects. 1. Method

When points of light are viewed in darkness, the visual
location of each point depends on other points in the 1.1. Stimuli
configuration, so that adding or deleting a point or even
moving one can change the visual location of all the The stimuli were 14 vertical white stakes on an open
others and the form of the egocentric distance func- sun-lighted field. Stakes varied in height from 40 to 160
tion can depend on the stimulus configuration (Cuijpers, cm. Each stake was identified by a visible letter at the
Kappers, & Koenderink, 2000; Foley, 1969, 1980, 1985). top. The stakes were distributed over an area 18 m wide
When inconsistent cues to some of the distances are by 18 m deep. There was one stake at the midpoint of
introduced, this produces a local distortion in dis- each side of this area. The others were distributed hap-
tance, which spreads to adjacent points, but not to the hazardly within the area, so that there was a two-
entire configuration (Gogel, 1972; Westheimer & Levi, dimensional distribution of stimulus positions and the
1987). In lighted situations there are many stimulus inter-stake extents had many different orientations rel-
factors (cues) that influence perceived distance and they ative to the observer. The coordinates of the stakes are
interact in complex ways (Cutting & Vishton, 1995; given in Table 1.
Gillam, 1995; Landy, Maloney, Johnston, & Young,
1995), but in many such situations a two-parameter
1.2. Procedure
egocentric distance function will describe results well.
It is
The observer was seated to one side of the array
facing the center. His or her head was placed in a rigid
R0i ¼ Ri =ðF þ GRi Þ; ð5Þ chin rest that constrained head movements. The ob-
server was either 5 or 18 m from the nearest stake. A 1 m
reference stake lay on the ground to the side of the
where F and G are constants. This equation describes
observer.
data from experiments done in a variety of cue condi-
Observers made one judgment of the physical dis-
tions and with different indicators of distance (Foley,
tance from themselves to each of the 14 stakes and
1977). A power function will also often fit data well (Da
all 91 of the inter-stake distances in random order.
Silva, 1985). The effect of changing cue conditions is to
Since we instructed our observers to report physi-
change the values of the parameters. The egocentric
cal distances, a judgment process may have inter-
distance function has the properties that visual distance
vened between the percept and the report. However,
increases linearly at short distances with a slope of 1=F
the fact that a model designed to describe performance
and then more and more slowly as distance increases,
in perceptual matching tasks fits these reports well
eventually asymptoting at a distance of 1=G.
suggests that they are closely related to perceived ex-
Eqs. (3)–(5) constitute a model of perceived extent.
tents.
We will call this model the tangle model, where tangle is
short for transformed angle. It has been shown to de-
scribe visual extent when points of light are viewed Table 1
binocularly in a dark room with G > 0, F > 1 and Physical coordinates of the 14 stakes relative to the subject’s position
0 < Q, P < 1, so that H00ij > Hij (Foley, 1991). The same Far condition (nearest stake Near condition (nearest stake
phenomenon of the over-perception of frontal extents at 18 m) at 5 m)
relative to radial extents occurs in lighted conditions Stake X (m) Y (m) Stake X (m) Y (m)
with multiple distance cues (Foley, 1972; Loomis, Da
Physical Coordinates
Silva, Fujita, & Fukusima, 1992). In lighted conditions A )9.00 27.00 A )9.00 14.00
F is usually 6 1. B )1.10 30.72 B )1.10 17.72
Three studies have been reported in which the stimuli C 0.00 18.00 C 0.00 5.00
were vertical stakes standing in an open field in daylight, D 0.00 36.00 D 0.00 23.00
E 5.79 25.98 E 5.79 12.99
and subjects reported the distance from themselves to
F 2.21 27.45 F 2.21 14.45
each of the stakes as well as inter-stake distances (Levin G )6.38 22.89 G )6.37 9.89
& Haber, 1993; Toye, 1986; Wagner, 1985). In each of H )1.30 22.79 H )1.30 9.79
these studies it was shown that extents that are oriented I 9.00 27.00 I 9.00 14.00
across the visual field are reported to be longer than the J )4.73 26.93 J )4.73 13.93
L )4.99 31.93 L )4.99 18.93
same extents when oriented on or near radial lines from
M )4.13 20.97 M )4.14 7.97
the observer. These studies suggest that the same model N 5.84 21.02 N 5.94 8.02
may apply in these natural outdoor viewing situations. O 4.19 30.51 O 4.19 17.52
To test this we analyzed the results of the following The Y axis is straight ahead and the X axis is orthogonal to Y . All
experiment. distances are in meters.
150 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156

1.3. Design sual distance than binocular viewing here. This is not a
common result and it may be due to individual differ-
There were four experimental conditions: ences between the observers in the different conditions.
The next question is whether Eq. (2) or Eq. (4) de-
(1) Binocular, 18 m to nearest stake. scribes how the visual extents among the stakes depend
(2) Binocular, 5 m to nearest stake. on their perceived distances and the visual angles that
(3) Monocular, 18 m to nearest stake. they subtend. In making this and other fits we used the
(4) Monocular, 5 m to nearest stake. perceived distances determined by fitting Eq. (5) to the
binocular and monocular data separately. Fig. 3 shows
A different group of 10 university students performed all the reported extents plotted against the extents pre-
in each condition. We used a between groups design dicted by Eq. (2). Most of the reports are greater than
with each observer making one judgment of the 105 the predictions. Many of the exceptions are egocentric
extents in one of the four conditions to avoid the carry extents (shown as open symbols) for which both models
over effects that would be expected if the same observers make the same prediction, since, Hij ¼ 0 for these ex-
performed in the different conditions or made repeated tents. So Eq. (2) fails when Hij > 0. The root mean
judgments of the same extents. square error (RMSE) of the fit is 2.19 m.
Fig. 4 shows reported extent as a function of predicted
extent determined using the tangle model (Eq. (4)). In-
2. Results dividual fits to the binocular and monocular data
showed that the best predictions are very similar, so a
We computed both the mean and the median report single fit was made to all the data. The figure shows the
for each of the 420 conditions. The mean standard de- fit of each of the four conditions separately. In the 18 m
viation was 4.16 m and the mean standard error was 1.32 conditions, there is almost no systematic error. With the
m. Our analysis is based on the median reports of the 10 same parameters the tangle model slightly under-pre-
observers in each condition. We used medians because a dicts reported extent in the 5 m binocular condition and
few observers in some conditions gave reports that over predicts in the 5 m monocular condition. The fit is
seemed to be outside the normal distribution of the other much better than that of Eq. (2) in all four conditions.
reports. The medians are much less influenced by these The RMSE of the fit is 1.09 m. The parameters of the
outliers. The same model fits the mean reports well. The best fit are P ¼ 0:574 and Q ¼ 0:314.
median reported extents are given in Table A.1. We first Since the common model is a special case of the tangle
fitted the egocentric distance function (Eq. (5)) to the model with Q ¼ 0, we were able to test the hypothesis
reports. It was fitted jointly to the data from the two that the improvement in fit with the tangle model can be
binocular conditions and likewise for the two monocular attributed to chance, using a test that takes into account
conditions. So we have two egocentric distance functions the difference in the number of free parameters (Khuri &
(Fig. 2). In spite of the abundance of distance cues and Cornell, 1987). F ð2; 414Þ ¼ 628:59, p ¼ 0, so the im-
the presence of a known standard, all the median re- provement in fit is highly statistically significant. Other
ported distances are less than the physical distances. models are possible, but this one fits the data well with
Monocular viewing produced less foreshortening of vi- very little systematic error.

A Binocular ALL B Monocular ALL

Reported Egocentric Distance (m)

35
Reported Egocentric Distance (m)

35

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10
5
5
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Physical Egocentric Distance (m) Physical Egocentric Distance (m)

Fig. 2. Median reported egocentric distance to the stakes: (A) binocular conditions, (B) monocular conditions. The smooth curves correspond to the
best least squares fit of Eq. (5) to the two data sets. Only the curve for Hij ¼ 0 is shown so the model is better than it appears here. Binocular:
F ¼ 1:2517, G ¼ 0:00725, RMSE ¼ 0.93 m. Monocular: F ¼ 1:2621, G ¼ 0:000314, RMSE ¼ 1.29 m.
 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156 151

A Binocular 18 B Monocular 18
30 30

25 25

Reported Extent (m)

Reported Extent (m)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predicted Extent (m) Predicted Extent (m)

C Binocular 5 D Monocular 5
30 30

25 25
Reported Extent (m)

Reported Extent (m)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predicted Extent (m) Predicted Extent (m)

Fig. 3. Median reported extents between pairs of points plotted against the extent predicted by the generalized common model (Eq. (2)). The open
symbols correspond to egocentric extents. (A) Binocular with nearest stake at 18 m. (B) Monocular with nearest stake at 18 m. (C) Binocular with the
nearest stake at 5 m. (D) Monocular with the nearest stake at 5 m. Reported extents consistently exceed predicted extents except when extents lie on
or near radial lines from the observer. The RMSE of the fit is 2.19 m.

Binocular 18 Monocular 18
30 30

25 25
Reported Extent (m)

Reported Extent (m)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
A Predicted Extent (m) B Predicted Extent (m)

Binocular 5 Monocular 5
30 30

25 25
Reported Extent (m)
Reported Extent (m)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
C Predicted Extent (m) D Predicted Extent (m)

Fig. 4. Reported extent vs extent predicted by the tangle model (Eq. (4)) for all point pairs: (A) binocular 18 m, (B) monocular 18 m, (C) binocular
5 m, (D) monocular 5 m. A single fit was made to all four data sets. The parameters of the best fit are P ¼ 0:556 and Q ¼ 0:310. The RMSE of the fit
is 1.09 m.
152 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156
Effective Visual Angle for Size Computation
2 extents (Foley, 1968; Loomis et al., 1992; Norman,
1.8
Effective Visual Angle (radians)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1 space is locally distorted (Gogel, 1972), cases where
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Visual Angle (radians)
Fig. 5. Effective visual angle for size computation as a function of
visual angle (Eq. (3)) based on the best fit of the tangle model to all
four data sets (continuous line). The dashed line shows what the
function would be if effective visual angle equals visual angle.
Fig. 5 is a plot of the effective angle for computing
perceived size against visual angle (Eq. (3)) determined
using the best fitting parameters. The effective visual
angle for size computation increases more rapidly than
visual angle and the function is nonlinear.
Since measurement error is relatively high in magni-
tude indication tasks, and our observers made only a
single report in each condition, our design is not well
suited to the examination of individual differences.
However, to get some sense of how well our models do
with individual data sets, we fitted both the common
and the tangle models to the 10 individual data sets in
the binocular, 18 m condition. In 9/10 cases the tangle
model fitted the data better and in seven of these nine
cases the improvement in fit was statistically significant
at the 0.05 significance level. The parameters P and Q
vary quite a bit from observer to observer, but both
values are generally less than 1, and the median values,
P ¼ 0:575 and Q ¼ 0:381, are close to the parameters
of the model for the median reports.
3. Discussion
Earlier results from similar experiments produced
results that are at least qualitatively consistent with
these; all found that extents oriented across the visual
field are reported to be large relative to the perceived
distances of their end points (Levin & Haber, 1993;
Toye, 1986; Wagner, 1985). There are also several
studies in which depth extents are perceptually matched
with extents perpendicular to the line of sight that show
that depth extents are under perceived relative to frontal
Todd, Perotti, & Tittle, 1996). The tangle model ac-
counts qualitatively for this phenomenon as well. How
well the model will fit the measurements in other studies
remains to be seen. In most reports numerical mea-
surements are not provided. There are certainly cases in
which the model will fail. These include cases where the
there are cues to size independent of distance (Gillam,
1980), some illusions of size, and cases where cognitive
factors, such as beliefs about specific extents or the na-
ture of visual space, determine the results. However, the
proposed model will account for several phenomena of
space perception when points of light are viewed in
darkness, including judgments of perceived extent and
1.6 matches between perceived extents in different orien-
tations (Foley, 1968), the usual result of the parallel
and equidistant alleys experiments (Blumenfeld, 1913)
and the failure of the homogeneity and locally Euclid-
ean properties (Foley, 1972). It will also account for
matches of perceived depth to perceived frontal extent
made under lighted outdoor conditions (Loomis et al.,
1992).
Up to this point we have avoided the question of the
geometry of the visual space. We have focused on how
perceived extents are related to (physical) visual angles
and perceived distances. The geometry of the visual
space is the geometry that describes the relations
among perceived extents and perceived angles. There is
a large literature on the geometry of visual space.
Much of the evidence is inconsistent with a Euclidean
model and much of the theoretical work has assumed
that the visual space is Riemannian and attempted to
determine its curvature. There have been only a few
studies of more fundamental geometrical properties
(Foley, 1964, 1972; Koenderink, Van Doorn, & Kap-
pers, 2002; Todd, Oomes, Koenderink, & Kappers,
2001) and these have not completely determined the
nature of the space.
However, if Eq. (3) is correct with H00ij substantially
greater than Hij , there are important implications for the
geometry of visual space. In particular, the space does
not satisfy the triangle inequality, a fundamental prop-
erty of all metric spaces. This property may be stated as
follows, given any triangle with sides of lengths a, b, and
c, a being the longest, then:
a 6 b þ c: ð6Þ
If Eq. (3) is correct andH00ij is sufficiently larger than
Hij , this property fails for triangles in which the visual
angle subtended by side a is large and the visual angles
subtended by sides b and c are small. The simplest case is
a triangle with the observer at one vertex and a large
visual angle subtended by the other two points. In our
experiment the largest such visual angle was 1.2 rad, and
 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156 153

the triangle inequality (Eq. (6)) was satisfied. However, cal and perceived location and the relation between any
Kelly, Beall and Loomis (personal communication) have pair of locations and the perceived extent between them.
done a similar experiment using angles up to 2.35 rad The common assumption is that perceived direction re
(135 deg) and at this visual angle they found violations straight ahead equals physical direction, but there is
of this inequality in 7 of 10 cases. The model also pre- evidence that perceived direction may be slightly greater
dicts that the perceived lengths of adjacent line segments than this and that consequently perceived visual angles
along a non-radial line will not generally sum to equal may be slightly greater than the corresponding physical
the perceived length of the entire line. angles (Bock, 1993; Foley, 1975; Foley & Held, 1972).
As a consequence of these and other implications, the Either assumption can be incorporated into the model
tangle model is inconsistent with all geometries of the without affecting the nature of the space.
class referred to as metric geometries, including the Ri- The model implies that, given an array of points in the
emannian geometries of constant curvature that have visual field, there are two modes in which they can be
frequently been proposed for visual space (Aczel, Boros, processed (Foley, 1972). We can localize the points and
Heller, & Ng, 1999; Blank, 1958a, 1958b; Heller, 1997; we can perceive the extent between them. In applying
Higashiyama, 1976, 1982; Indow, 1974, 1991, 1997; the model to any task, one must first determine whether
Luneburg, 1947, 1950) and Riemannian geometries of it is a location task or an extent task. To describe and
varying curvature (Koenderink, van Doorn, & Lappin, predict perceived locations, one needs only the trans-
2000). The model is also inconsistent with the affine form between physical and perceived coordinates. For
transform and vector contraction models of Wagner perceived extent, one must also apply the perceived
(1985). extent function.
Nevertheless, if we add to our model a plausible as- What, if any, advantage does this strange geometry
sumption about the relation between perceived direction give us? When egocentric distance is under-perceived,
and physical direction, and substitute perceived visual the tangle visual extent function plays an adaptive role.
angle for physical visual angle in Eq. (3), the model is It usually makes visual extents more similar to physical
then a complete model of the relation between physi- extents than they would be if computed with the

A Binocular 18 B Monocular 18
30 30

25 25
Reported Extent (m)
Reported Extent (m)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Physical Extent (m) Physical Extent (m)

C Binocular 5 D Monocular 5

30 30

25 25
Reported Extent (m)

Reported Extent (m)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Physical Extent (m) Physical Extent (m)

Fig. 6. Reported extent as a function of physical extent for all point pairs: (A) binocular, 18 m; (B) monocular, 18 m; (C) Binocular, 5 m; (D)
Monocular, 5 m.
154 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156

Euclidean metric. However, since the correction is visual
angle dependent, the visual extent function does not
provide a generally accurate compensation for the
foreshortened egocentric distance. Fig. 6 shows reported
extent as a function of physical extent. Most of the re-
ported extents are less than the corresponding physical
extents, and there is a wide spread in the reports for
comparable physical extents showing that physical ex-
tent is less closely related to reported extent than is
predicted extent from the tangle model. Nevertheless,
reported extents are closer to the physical extents than
are the predictions of the common model. In cases where
perceived egocentric distance is over-perceived or accu-
rately perceived, the perceived extent function is
counter-adaptive.
What processes underlie the counterintuitive relation
between perceived location and perceived extent? We
think that the explanation of this relationship lies in the
conflicts between the signals that arise in our visual
system and spatial knowledge that we have (Gogel,
1998). At some level the system compensates for the fact
that perceived egocentric distances are often shorter
than physical distances. We continue to misperceive
distance, but this misperception is taken into account in
the computation of perceived extent. The compensation
is far from exact, but it is better than no compensation.
Thus, our space perception system is not very elegantly
designed, nor is it very accurate, but it is good enough to
keep most of us alive most of the time.
Acknowledgements
Supported by FAPESP-Brazil. We thank Albert
Blank, John Cotton, Brian Foley, William Jacob, Jon
Kelly, Jack Loomis, and Srinivasa Varadharajan for
comments on the manuscript or the analysis.

Table A.1
Median reported extent in meters
B C D E F G H I J L M N O P
Binocular viewing, far condition
A 9.00 10.00 12.25 13.50 11.50 3.00 8.00 16.50 5.50 6.50 6.00 15.00 12.00 19.00
B 8.00 3.75 6.00 3.38 7.50 6.00 10.00 5.00 4.00 8.75 9.00 5.50 21.50
C 13.50 8.50 6.00 6.00 3.00 10.75 8.00 10.00 4.75 7.50 10.50 14.00
D 9.00 6.75 14.00 9.00 13.00 8.00 6.75 14.00 12.50 6.50 25.00
E 3.75 13.00 7.50 3.50 11.00 10.00 10.00 3.50 3.13 18.00
F 8.50 4.50 7.50 6.70 7.50 7.50 6.75 2.65 18.00
G 5.25 14.00 3.00 7.00 2.00 10.50 12.00 15.75
H 10.00 4.00 7.50 2.75 7.25 8.00 15.50
I 13.75 13.75 12.00 3.25 6.00 18.50
J 2.63 4.25 12.00 9.00 17.75
L 9.25 13.25 9.00 21.00
M 9.50 12.00 15.00
N 7.50 15.50
O 22.00
Monocular viewing, far condition
A 10.00 12.00 14.00 17.50 12.50 4.50 9.00 18.75 5.50 7.00 7.50 21.50 17.50 20.50
B 8.50 3.75 10.50 4.50 10.00 5.50 13.50 7.00 5.50 10.00 11.00 7.50 25.50
C 12.50 8.50 7.25 9.00 5.00 11.50 8.25 11.00 6.50 6.75 11.00 15.00
D 11.00 6.00 13.50 10.00 13.50 11.00 8.00 15.00 13.00 6.00 30.00
E 5.00 14.50 10.00 4.00 12.50 13.50 13.00 4.50 4.50 20.50
F 10.50 5.00 10.00 9.50 10.50 9.00 7.50 4.00 22.50
G 6.50 18.00 4.00 7.50 3.50 11.00 17.00 18.50
H 10.00 5.00 7.25 4.50 9.50 11.00 18.50
I 15.50 18.50 15.00 4.25 8.00 20.50
J 4.00 5.50 14.00 10.00 20.50
L 10.00 17.00 11.50 24.00
M 12.50 13.50 19.00
N 7.00 20.00
O 24.00
Binocular viewing, near condition
A 8.75 10.50 12.00 15.75 11.50 3.25 8.50 18.25 4.25 7.00 5.00 15.50 15.00 13.25
B 8.50 3.00 8.75 3.75 8.50 5.25 11.50 5.00 4.00 9.50 11.00 5.50 12.00
C 12.00 8.00 7.50 6.00 2.75 9.25 7.50 11.00 4.25 6.75 9.25 4.50
D 9.00 7.00 13.50 10.00 14.00 9.00 7.00 12.75 15.25 6.00 19.00
E 3.50 11.25 7.25 3.25 9.50 13.50 12.50 3.00 3.50 11.50
 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156 155

Table A.1 (continued)

B C D E F G H I J L M N O P
F 10.25 4.75 7.25 6.75 7.50 9.50 7.50 2.75 11.00
G 5.00 15.50 3.75 8.50 2.00 12.00 13.50 9.00
H 10.00 4.75 6.50 3.50 7.25 7.00 7.00
I 12.75 14.50 13.75 3.50 7.00 10.75
J 4.00 4.75 11.00 9.25 10.00
L 9.50 13.25 9.35 14.00
M 10.00 10.25 7.50
N 8.25 7.25
O 13.50
Monocular viewing, near condition
A 8.75 10.00 12.50 13.50 10.25 3.50 6.88 17.00 5.00 6.50 5.00 14.50 12.75 12.25
B 8.50 3.25 7.75 4.00 9.25 5.25 8.75 6.00 5.00 8.00 9.75 5.88 14.50
C 12.00 7.25 6.25 6.25 3.50 9.50 6.00 9.00 4.00 5.75 8.50 4.75
D 8.75 5.75 14.25 8.25 11.25 9.25 6.50 11.00 12.00 5.75 19.00
E 4.50 12.00 7.75 3.00 11.00 11.25 8.50 4.00 4.75 10.00
F 8.50 5.58 7.50 7.25 7.00 7.50 7.75 3.75 12.00
G 5.25 14.50 4.00 7.00 2.25 10.50 12.00 10.00
H 10.75 5.00 6.50 4.00 7.13 8.13 9.00
I 11.75 13.50 12.25 3.75 7.50 10.75
J 3.50 5.00 11.00 9.50 11.00
L 7.75 14.00 7.75 15.00
M 9.75 10.00 7.00
N 7.50 9.00
O 12.25
P corresponds to the subject’s position.

References Foley, J. M. (1972). Size-distance relation and intrinsic geometry of

Aczel, J., Boros, Z., Heller, J., & Ng, C. T. (1999). Functional
equations in binocular space perception. Journal of Mathematical
Psychology, 43, 71–101.
Blank, A. A. (1958a). Analysis of experiments in binocular space
perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 48, 911–
925.
Blank, A. A. (1958b). Axiomatics of binocular vision: the foundations
of metric geometry in relation to space perception. Journal of the
Optical Society of America, 48, 328–334.
Blumenfeld, W. (1913). Untersuchungen uber die scheinbare Grosse in
Sehraume. Zeit. f. Psychologie u. Physiologie de Sinnesorgane, 65,
241–404.
Bock, O. (1993). Localization of objects in the peripheral visual field.
Behavioural Brain Research, 56, 77–84.
Boring, E. G. (1942). Sensation and perception in the history of
experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Cuijpers, R. H., Kappers, A. M. L., & Koenderink, J. J. (2000).
Investigation of visual space using an exocentric pointing task.
Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 1556–1571.
Cutting, J. E., & Vishton, P. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing
distances: the integration, relative potency, and contextual use of
different information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. J. Rogers
(Eds.), Perception of space and motion (pp. 69–117). San Diego, CA,
US: Academic Press, Inc.
Da Silva, J. A. (1985). Scales for perceived egocentric distance in a
large open field: comparison of three psychophysical methods.
American Journal of Psychology, 98, 119–144.
Foley, J. M. (1964). Desarguesian property in visual space. Journal of
the Optical Society of America, 54, 684–692.
Foley, J. M. (1968). Depth, size and distance in stereoscopic vision.
Perception and Psychophysics, 3, 265–274.
Foley, J. M. (1969). Distance in stereoscopic vision: the three-point
problem. Vision Research, 9, 1505–1521.
visual space: implications for processing. Vision Research, 12,
323–332.
Foley, J. M. (1975). Error in visually directed manual pointing.
Perception and Psychophysics, 17, 69–74.
Foley, J. M. (1977). Effect of distance information and range on
two indices of visually perceived distance. Perception, 6, 449–460.
Foley, J. M. (1980). Binocular distance perception. Psychological
Review, 87(5), 411–434.
Foley, J. M. (1985). Binocular distance perception: egocentric distance
tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 11, 133–149.
Foley, J. M. (1991). Binocular space perception. In D. Regan (Ed.),
Binocular vision (vol. 9, pp. 75–92). London: Macmillan.
Foley, J. M., & Held, R. (1972). Visually directed pointing as a
function of target distance, direction, and available cues. Perception
and Psychophysics, 12, 263–268.
Gillam, B. (1980). Geometrical illusions. Scientific American, 242(1),
102–111.
Gillam, B. (1995). The perception of spatial layout from static optical
information. In W. Epstein & S. J. Rogers (Eds.), Perception of space
and motion (pp. 23–67). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, Inc.
Gogel, W. C. (1972). Depth adjacency and cue effectiveness. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 92, 176–181.
Gogel, W. C. (1998). An analysis of perceptions from changes in
optical size. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 805–820.
Harvey, L. O., Jr, & Leibowitz, H. W. (1967). Effects of exposure
duration, cue reduction, and temporary monocularity in size
matching at short distances. Journal of the Optical Society of
America, 57, 249–253.
Heller, J. (1997). Psychophysical invariances in binocular space
perception. Zeitschrift fuer Psychologie, 205, 297–318.
Higashiyama, A. (1976). The 3- and 4-point experiments and a test of
homogeneity in binocular visual space. Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 47, 149–157.
156 J.M. Foley et al. / Vision Research 44 (2004) 147–156
Higashiyama, A. (1982). The effects of familiar-size cue on children’s
judgments of size and distance. Japanese Journal of Psychology,
53, 259–265.
Indow, T. (1974). On geometry of frameless binocular perceptual
space. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the
Orient, 17, 50–63.
Indow, T. (1991). A critical review of Luneburg’s model with regard to
global structure of visual space. Psychological Review, 98, 430–453.
Indow, T. (1997). Hyperbolic representation of global structure of
visual space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 89–98.
Kaufman, L. (1974). Sight and mind: an introduction to visual
perception. New York: Oxford University Press.
Khuri, A., & Cornell, J. (1987). Response surfaces: designs and analysis.
New York: Marcel Dekker.
Koenderink, J. J., Van Doorn, A. J., & Kappers, A. M. L. (2002).
Pappus in optical space. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 380–
391.
Koenderink, J. J., van Doorn, A. J., & Lappin, J. S. (2000). Direct
measurement of the curvature of visual space. Perception, 29, 69–79.
Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., Johnston, E. B., & Young, M. (1995).
Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense
of weak fusion. Vision Research, 35, 389–412.
Levin, C. A., & Haber, R. N. (1993). Visual angle as a determinant of
perceived interobject distance. Perception and Psychophysics, 54,
250–259.
Loomis, J. M., Da Silva, J. A., Fujita, N., & Fukusima, S. S. (1992).
Visual space perception and visually directed action. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18,
906–921.
Luneburg, R. K. (1947). Mathematical analysis of binocular vision.
Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press.
Luneburg, R. K. (1950). The metric of binocular visual space. Journal
of the Optical Society of America, 40, 627–642.
Norman, J. F., Todd, J. T., Perotti, V. J., & Tittle, J. S. (1996). The
visual perception of three-dimensional length. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 173–
186.
Pastore, N. (1971). Selective history of theories of visual perception:
1650–1950. New York: Oxford University Press.
Todd, J. T., Oomes, A. H. J., Koenderink, J. J., & Kappers, A. l. M.
(2001). On the affine structure of perceptual space. Psychological
Science, 12, 191–196.
Toye, R. C. (1986). The effect of viewing position on the perceived
layout of scenes. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 85–92.
Wagner, M. (1985). The metric of visual space. Perception and
Psychophysics, 38, 483–495.
Westheimer, G., & Levi, D. M. (1987). Depth attraction and repulsion
of disparate foveal stimuli. Vision Research, 27(8), 1361–1368.
Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology.
New York: Henry Holt and Company.