The results of three experiments demonstrated that the visual system calibrates motion parallax according to absolute-distance information in processing depth. The parallax was created by yoking the relative movement of random dots displayed on a cathode-ray tube to the movements of the head. In Experiment l, at viewing distances of 40 cm and 80 cm, observers reported the apparent depth produced by motion parallax equivalent to a binocular disparity of 0.47". The mean apparent depth

depth ambiguities. Without promoting the cues, their raw data (e.g., disparities and velocities) are in different units so that simple cue-combination strategies, such as averaging the depth estimates made using each cue, are impossible. When the missing parameters are the eye positions (vergence, gaze directions, and torsions), the promotion process is referred to as depth scaling. In particular, in central gaze, the raw sensory data for the cue (velocities, disparities, etc.) are scaled by (that is, multiplied by, or multiplied by the square of) an estimate of the fixation distance. To the extent that this scaling is done accurately, the result is depth constancy: perceived depth that is independent of changes in viewing conditions. In this hapter we will limit our discussion of cue promotion to the issue of scaling by the fixation distance. We review a number of ways in which depth scaling may be accomplished. Micha

this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact

The allocation of perceived size and perceived motion or displacement in depth resulting from retinal size changes (changes in the visual angle of the stimulus) was investigated in situations in which all other cues of perceived changes in distance were absent. The allocation process was represented by the size–distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH), in which, for a given change in visual angle, the perceived depth was determined only by the amount of size constancy available. The changes in perceived size and perceived distance (perceived depth) were measured by kinesthetic observer (open-loop) adjustments in five situations. These situations consisted of optical expansions or contractions presented successively or simultaneously or as a mixture of successive and simultaneous presentations. The amounts of perceived motion or perceived displacement in depth obtained by kinesthetic measures were compared with those obtained from size constancy measures as applied to the SDIH. This latter measure accounted for more of the perceived depth obtained from simultaneous and mixed situations than it did for the perceived depth from the successive situations and more for the perceived depth obtained from the expansion than from the contraction situations, whether these were simultaneous or mixed. Perceived rigidity of the stimulus (perfect size constancy) clearly was not obtained in any of the situations. Significant partial size constancy and some predictive ability of the perceived sagittal motion

The distortion of polar perspective depends on the depth of the tridimensional shape and on the observation distance. In four experiments using 54 undergraduates as subjects, we found that a compensation process which takes depth and observation distance into account corrects for such distortions. Compensation was demonstrated in experiments in which deceptive information on depth and on observation distance was provided. The result was distortions of the perceived shapes that would be expected if compensation were based on the deceptive information. When a surface with a fixed shape is given with a slant in relation to the line of sight, the shape of its retinal image differs from the objective shape. Then if the perceived shape differs from the retinal shape in the direction of the objective shape or is in agreement with the objective shape, we speak of shape constancy. Hochberg (1971) discussed two explanations of such a correction for the distortion of image shapes caused by slant of the objective shape to the line of sight. One "explanation... is that we know what shape an object really has because of our

sagittal motion, and visual angle from optical expansions and contractions