Why do objects appear enlarged under water?

Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia

Volumn 66, Issue 5 SUPPL., 2003, Pages 69-76

  Ross, Helen E ^a   Nawaz, Shazia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Adaptation; Angular size; Apparent distance; Apparent size; Spatial distortion; Underwater effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749071419     PISSN: 00042749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S0004-27492003000600009     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Hershenson M. Visual space perception: A primer. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999.
2. Epstein W, Park J, Casey A. The current status of the size-distance hypotheses. Psychol Bull 1961;58:491-514.
3. Higashiyama A, Shimono K. How accurate is size and distance perception for very far terrestrial objects? Function and causality. Percept Psychophys 1994; 55:429-42.
4. Haber RN, Levin CA. The independence of size perception and distance perception. Percept Psychophys 2001;63:1140-52.
5. McCready D. On size, distance and visual angle perception. Percept Psychophys 1985;37:323-34.
6. McCready D. Moon illusions redescribed. Percept Psychophys 1986;39:64-72.
7. Ross HE, Plug C. The history of size constancy and size illusions. In: Walsh V, Kulikowski JJ, editors, Visual constancies: why things look as they do. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998, p.499-528.
8. Ross HE, Plug C. The mystery of the moon illusion: exploring size perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
9. Thouless RH. Apparent size and distance in vision through a magnifying system. Brit J Psychol 1968;21:339-59.
10. Kinney JAS. Human underwater vision: physiology and physics. Bethesda: Undersea Medical Society, 1985.
11. Ross HE. Water, fog and the size-distance invariance hypothesis. Brit J Psychol 1967;58:301-13.
12. Ross HE. The size-constancy of underwater swimmers. Q J Exp Psychol 1965;17:329-37.
13. Ross HE, Franklin SS, Weltman G, Lennie P. Adaptation of divers to size distortion under water. Brit J Psychol 1970;61:365-73.
14. Franklin SS, Ross HE, Weltman G. Size-distance invariance in perceptual adaptation. Psychon Sci 1970;21:229-31.
15. Luria SM, Kinney JAS, Weissman S. Estimates of size and distance underwater. Am J Psychol 1967;80:282-6.
16. Kinney JAS, Luria SM. Conflicting visual and tactual-kinaesthetic stimulation. Percept Psychophys 1970;8:189-92.
17. Goeters K-M. Die viso-motorische Orientierung des Tauchers im Greifraum in Abhängigkeit von der Erfahrung und den Sichtbedingungen im Wasser. DLR-FB 75-35. Institut für Flugmedizin, DLR Linder Höhe, D 5000, Cologne, 1975.
18. Ross HE, Lennie P. Adaptation and counteradaptation to complex optical distortion. Percept Psychophys 1972;12:273-7.
19. Scheuhammer J, Timney B. Adaptation to optically reduced size. Perception 1982;11:139-52.
20. Kaufman L, Rock I. The moon ilusion thirty years later. In: Hershenson M, editor, The moon illusion. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1989, p.193-234.
21. McKee SP, Welch L. The precision of size constancy. Vision Res 1992;32: 1447-60.
22. Ross HE. Levels of processing in the size-distance paradox. In: Harris LR, Jenkin M, editors, Levels of perception. New York: Springer Verlag; 2002, p.143-62.
23. Bingham GP, Zaal F, Robin D, Shull JA. Distortions in definite distance and shape perception as measured by reaching without and with haptic feedback. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2000;26:1436-60.
24. Kaneko H, Uchikawa K. Perceived angular and linear size: the role of binocular disparity and visual surround. Perception 1997;26:17-27.
25. Stratton GM. Experimental psychology and culture. New York: Macmillan, 1903.
26. Rock I. Adaptation to a minified image. Psychon Sci 1965;2:105-6.
27. Gibson JJ. The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950.