Finally then, let's talk about

the perception of object size.

So we've been talking about lines,
intervals, angles, very simple
combinations of luminous patterns if
you like to think of it that way.
So first, these are objects in one sense,
but objects can also be much more complex.
And one of the features of objects that we
obviously need to know something about is,
is their size.
As in these other domains
of geometric perception,
size is very strangely perceived.
And let me invite you to go up to
the purvelab website the URL is here.
And actually play with this and look at
it, but I'm going to describe it to you
as a compelling example of how strangely
we see the size of the same objects.
So even though it'll be hard for
you to believe, this little figure,
the gold figure,
and this gold figure in the background
are both exactly the same size.
Again if you take a ruler and
and measure them.
But these are, complex objects, and
what the website demonstration allows you
to do is to move these objects back and
forth and see for yourself ow they vary
as a function of the apparent distance
from you as an observer, in, in the scene.
So this is a nice interactive
demonstration of the variation in
the apparent size of complex
objects that you can
I think readily convince
yourself is strange indeed.
Any idea that one has about
the nature of vision has to
be able to explain such phenomena as well.
And I'm going to show you
this bunch of examples of
classical size contrast effects.
Size contrast being the analog
of lightness contrast,
or color contrast that we talked
about in the previous modules.
And I've left the legend
in this particular example
because I think otherwise you
really wouldn't remember the,
the brief description I'm going to give
you of this and you need to look at this.
And think about it, all of these
phenomena, seven of them here,
have names that are, you know,
in the literature for
decades all of them as in the previous

issues that we discussed.

But the common denominator here is
that you are being asked to compare,
in each one of these examples,
the apparent size of the circles
that are represented in light gray, this
one compared to this one, for example.
This one compared to this one.
This light gray circle in
the concentric inner part of
the illustration here to this one.
And so on for the rest of them.
So you're always comparing the two circles
that are diagrammed here in light gray.
And what you'll see as you go
through is that in each case.
And these are not overwhelmingly
striking phenomena.
But I think you will readily convince
yourself that they are quite real,
and certainly dozens and of people have
over the years beaten their heads
against these kinds of phenomena,
trying to explain the apparent size
differences that you see here.
So read the legend and get a feeling for
this complex phenomenology.
Obviously it would take me far too
long to explain the rationalization of
these phenomena in the same way I have for
line lengths and angles.
Suffice it to say that each of these
things, again by using the data
derived from an analysis of the link or
relationship between objective,
three-dimensional reality and the
projections of that reality in terms of,
in this case, simple circular objects
leads to an entirely parallel explanation.
So, let's take at least one of these to
explain at least to some degree what's
going on here and how it relates to the
perception of other geometrical aspects,
the length of lines, the angles and
things we've talked about before.
And let's take the simplest of these,
and probably the best known,
it's called the Ebbinghaus effect,
and it's this one here.
Ebbinghaus was a well known
German psychologist at the end of
the 19th century, he worked in Berlin, and
he's probably best known for
his work on memory.
But his name lives on in a lot
of people's minds because
of this phenomenon that he described, the
Ebbinghaus Effect that I just mentioned.
So just to go back to it
the Ebbinghaus Effect, remember,

is that when you compare the two

central circles here in light gray.
This one looks a little bit larger
than this one on the right,
not a very impressive effect,
but I think you can see it.
What we're going to talk
about now is how you
get the data to explain this
phenomenon in empirical terms.
And what's done here,
the dotted line is the central circle.
And what's done here is using
a bunch of circles around it,
the four circles surrounding it
that form the context to test
the frequency of the currents of those
circles as a function of their diameters.
The diameters of
the circles in the context.
And the results are shown here.
The diameters of the surrounding
circles of several different sizes.
These are measured in pixels,
just as a matter of convenience,.
So the small, smallest circle here
is two pixels, the largest one 32.
And, and this is the diameter of
the central circle as,
it's frequency of occurrence,
as a function of the frequency in,
as a function of its frequency...
And the context of circles
is different diameters.
And what you see here is
that there a difference,
let's just look at the a small sample
circle which is this black line.
You see that occurs much
more frequently with
smaller circles as the context
than with larger circles.
And if we take a particular circle,
again this dotted line is
just to represent a circle of particular
diameter, 14 pixels in this case.
And then plot the occurrence of that set
the occurrence of a central circle of
a certain diameter 14 pixels as a function
of a diameter of the surrounding circles.
You see that there is
a very big difference in
the frequency occurrence of the same
circle in different contexts.
So, the circle,
when it's surrounded by smaller circles,
occurs much more frequently than
it's surrounded by larger circles.
And the explanation for this is very
similar to the explanation we went

through before that just has to do with

frequency of occurrence of projections
under the retina coming from
the geometry of the real world and
the fact that the larger the complex that
you're looking at, the larger the context.
We saw this earlier the less
frequently that's going to occur.
These are just examples of the kinds
of scenes, here testing for
larger circles and
here for smaller circles.
And I think you can see intuitively, that
you're going to get a higher frequency of
circles when you test for the same
circle in a context of little circles.
You'll get many more frequencies of
occurrence, many more occurrences, when,
when you test for
the same size of the central circle
in the context of the larger circles.
And it's the ranking of that
frequency of occurrence that
explains the different f appearance again,
let's go back to the Ebbinghouse effect.
That explains the difference
in appearance,
the larger appearance of the central
circle, in the context of small circles.
The large circles.
Again, the same kind of explanation,
and the virtue of this, or
the purpose of it, and
it is really the purpose not just kind of
an odd phenomenon that has to do
with the oddities of, of vision.
The purpose of this is by ranking,
to make a behavior that's correct
in the physical world in the absence of
information about that physical world,
which as we've said many times is
not available in the retinal images.
So, we have our ones of these that
I'm not going to explain to you all.
Fall into the same category
of of explanation.
So, the main points that I've
tried to get across today and
I think they're pretty straightforward
first is that the real-world sources of
intervals angles sizes
can't be known directly.
This is our early friend the inverse
problem causing a fundamental obstacle to
how it is that we behave effectively,
appropriately in the world
in response to these objects without
knowing one of their physical properties.
And it's the same puzzle, and
the explanation is again parallel to

the explanations that I've given you for

the perception of lightness and
for the perceptions of color.
The apparent solution is really,
you can't solve the inverse problems,
as I have said before.
But you can get around it on
the basis of accumulated trial and
error experience using as, we described in
the modular luminants feedback from
reproductive success, as a substitute, for
feedback from actual measurements,
of objects in the world and
their properties that the inverse,
problem precludes.
We'll come back to this at the end
of these modules and go through in
more detail about how that works,
because it's the common denominator for
all of the phenomenology
that I've been showing you.
And for these geometrical phenomenon
that we've talked about today,
the evidence for this conclusion is
that you can predict on this basis,
what you see in response to many
of these long standing effects or
illusions if you want to,
persist in calling them that.
Again, I remind you that illusions
is not a good word because,
that's simply obscures the fact that
this is the way we're seeing everything,
not just the occasional funny
business that some psychophysicist or
psychologist presents to you.
So, next time we'll go on and
we'll talk about something we
haven't considered at all so far,
which is the phenomenology and
the explanation of that phenomenology
when you consider distance and depth.