ArticleJournal of vision2026
The visual perception of outdoor angular spatial relationships.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A single experiment evaluated younger and older observers' ability to judge angular spatial relationships in an ordinary outdoor environment. Previous research from multiple laboratories has found that the visual ability to perceive distance is either well-maintained or improves with advancing age. The present experiment investigated whether this age-related equivalence or superiority also occurs for other spatial abilities, such as the ability to judge angles. Thirty adults judged 12 angles formed from trees, signs, light poles, and stone benches. The observers' overall performance was good: 74% of the variance in the judged angles could be accounted for by variance in the physical stimulus angles (overall Pearson r correlation coefficient was 0.86). The judgments of the older observers were nevertheless more accurate than those made by the younger observers (Cohen's d was 0.72). A detailed analysis of the observers' judgments revealed consistent local distortions of particular stimulus angles such that some angles were perceived to be much larger than they actually were (physically), whereas other stimulus angles were perceived to be much smaller than their physical magnitude. These local distortions in perceived angle magnitude may be related to the presence of environmental features that are associated with (linear) perspective.
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.