ArticleScientific reports2024
The visual perception of long outdoor distances.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The visual perception of outdoor angular spatial relationships.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) may be associated with nuclear testing and reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Visual outdoor space perception.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many previous studies have investigated visual distance perception, especially for small to moderate distances. Few experiments, however, have evaluated the perception of large distances (e.g., 100 m or more). The studies that have been conducted have found conflicting results (diametrically opposite conclusions). In the current experiment, the functions relating actual and perceived distance were obtained for sixteen adult observers using the method of equal appearing intervals. These functions relating perceived and actual distance were obtained for outdoor viewing in a typical University environment-the experiment was conducted along a sidewalk adjacent to a typical street where campus buildings, trees, street signs, etc., were visible. The overall results indicated perceptual compression of distances in depth so that the stimulus distance intervals appeared significantly shorter than the actual (physical) distance intervals. It is important to note, however, that there were sizeable individual differences-the judgments of half of the observers were relatively accurate, whereas the judgments of the remaining half were inaccurate to varying degrees. The results of the experiment demonstrate that there is no single function that describes how human observers visually perceive large distance intervals in outdoor environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.