Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38411955›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

Internal representations of the canonical real-world distance of objects.

Yijin Wang, Jie Gao, Fuying Zhu, Xiaoli Liu, Gexiu Wang, Yichong Zhang, Zhiqing Deng, Juan Chen

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yijin WangCenter for the Study of Applied Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, and the School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Jie GaoCenter for the Study of Applied Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, and the School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Fuying ZhuCenter for the Study of Applied Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, and the School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaoli LiuCenter for the Study of Applied Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, and the School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Gexiu WangCenter for the Study of Applied Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, and the School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Yichong ZhangCenter for the Study of Applied Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, and the School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhiqing DengCenter for the Study of Applied Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, and the School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Juan ChenCenter for the Study of Applied Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, and the School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the real world, every object has its canonical distance from observers. For example, airplanes are usually far away from us, whereas eyeglasses are close to us. Do we have an internal representation of the canonical real-world distance of objects in our cognitive system? If we do, does the canonical distance influence the perceived size of an object? Here, we conducted two experiments to address these questions. In Experiment 1, we first asked participants to rate the canonical distance of objects. Participants gave consistent ratings to each object. Then, pairs of object images were presented one by one in a trial, and participants were asked to rate the distance of the second object (i.e., a priming paradigm). We found that the rating of the perceived distance of the target object was modulated by the canonical real-world distance of the prime. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to judge the perceived size of canonically near or far objects that were presented at the converging end (i.e., far location) or the opening end (i.e., near location) of a background image with converging lines. We found that regardless of the presentation location, participants perceived the canonically near object as smaller than the canonically far object even though their retinal and real-world sizes were matched. In all, our results suggest that we have an internal representation of the canonical real-world distance of objects, which affects the perceived distance of subsequent objects and the perceived size of the objects themselves.

Indexed as

Distance PerceptionRetinaSize PerceptionVisual PerceptionHumans

Identifiers

PMID38411955
PMCPMC10910641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.