j *@ - Sociedade Brasileira de Psicologia

726
E
*
=
o
c
*
œ .
X
FIGURE 1
hom son ( 1 ) .-
Exper iment 1 a.-
*
@
*
@'
@'
.
1 .* *
-1 ..* .
F
0 4 8 12 16 20
@*
Target Diqtanc: (m)
depth. Gilinsky's (1951) classic work on perceived size and distance indicates that
constant physical intervals in depth apm ar increasingly foreshortened with increasing
egocentric distahce, prestlmably because of the faloff in cue availability. Figure 2
gves the results of one of her exjeriments in which equaly appearing depth intervals
were constl cted' along a single line in depth on the ground. This result and other
convere g evidence hl her paper strongly suggest that perceived egocentric distance is
a negatively accelerated function of physical distance even under full-cue conditions.
'
What we have is an apparent paradox, for the n omson results and other
evidence indicate that subjects do ç:know ' where things are in near space, yet visual
taskx performed tmder similar conditions imply considerable distortion of visual space .
*