See the image below for confirmation of this fact. Why is this? This makes the angular size larger to your eyes which makes the object look larger relative to how they would look in air.
This effect is shown qualitatively in the ray diagram below. The index of refraction of the glass interface does not play a role as long as 1 the thickness is much smaller than the distance to the object and 2 the two surfaces of the glass are parallel to each other. You can get an approximate answer as to how much larger things would look by assuming that the distance between your mask and the object is much larger than the distance between the mask and your eyes.
So, the approximate magnification is 1. For objects which are closer up you would need to relax the small angle approximation as well as take the distance between the mask and your eyes into account.
The green lines represent the path the light would have taken without the water, and therefore the "apparent size" of the bubble. But as you can see, the refraction of the light away from the normal transitioning to a medium of lower refractive index causes the angle at which the light appears at the eye to change - and since the angle subtended by the object is larger, it "appears" larger for the given distance. Goggles that are slightly curved with the center of curvature at the lens of the eye prevent this from happening - it's almost as if you had put a lens with a negative focal length on the inside of your goggles:.
Since it is observed to be 1. Leaving out the bit in the middle, you see that the refractive index of the glass does not, in fact, affect the magnification.
But the curvature of the glass does - very much. Just as you can think of the curved goggles my second diagram as "correction" for the magnification as you know, lenses with negative focal length make things look smaller , so you can consider the original situation as a "positive" lens - since, depending on their path, the rays traverse a different amount of water.
I am struggling a bit to find a good way to represent that graphically - but it's basically the counterpoint to the second diagram above. And having a positive lens in the path causes magnification, of course. If you could see properly with your eyes under water you had some amazing internal lensing mechanism you would see the bubble with its usual angular size.
Wondering how big it is, you could bounce a LIDAR signal off the bubble and deduce, from the round trip tipe, how far away the bubble is. Objects in water, seen through a flat surface, do appear magnified when the eye is close to the surface. Anyone who has used a diving mask under water will be aware of this.
This increases the included angle from the perceived object and hence it appears larger. If the eye is a long way from the interface, then the light rays entering the eye pass at nearly the same angle through the interface and so there is little difference in the amount of refraction. Sign up to join this community. Go Paperless with Digital.
Key concepts Lens Magnifying glass Optics Light Introduction Have you ever studied an everyday object through a magnifying glass—and been amazed at what you could see? Materials A newspaper page Two rulers with metric measurements on them, preferably with dark markings One transparency film or clear sheet protector Drinking glass with water Medicine dropper optional Mobile device with a camera optional Small transparent plastic cup or tiny tasting cup with a flat bottom optional Preparation Find a waterproof work area.
Select an article in the newspaper with a small font. You can use your ruler to measure the height of the letters; they should be a few millimeters high. Procedure Place the transparency film on top of a newspaper page. Create a drop of water near the middle of the transparency film. Use a water dropper or your finger to let two or three drops fall on the film and merge into one bigger drop. Examine your water drop. Is the top of the drop surface flat, curved inward or curved outward?
Shift your transparency film so the water drop lays on top of the small print letters. Close or cover one eye and look from above with the other eye at the letters under the drop.
Compare them with the letters next to but not covered by the drop. Do they look the same? Does one appear bigger or smaller than the other? Using two hands, carefully lift and hold the transparency film about half an inch above the newspaper, leaving the newspaper on your work surface. You might need help lifting the transparency film if you like to cover one eye with a hand. Close or cover one eye and look carefully from above through the water drop at the letters on the newspaper.
Do the letters appear different than when the transparency film rested on the newspaper? What happens when you move the transparency film farther up? Move the transparency film up and down a couple of times looking from above through the water drop with one eye. How does your perception of the letters change as you move the transparency film farther up or back down?
Why do you think this happens? To measure the magnification factor of your water drop, put a ruler under your transparency film on your work surface and another ruler next to the drop on top of the transparency film, but be sure to prevent the ruler from touching the drop.
Lift the transparency film with the top ruler and water drop about 1. You might need help lifting the transparency film together with the ruler and the water drop. How many millimeters does one millimeter indication measure? This number tells you by what factor objects appear bigger when seen through your water drop. Are you surprised about the magnification factor you obtained? Measure the magnification factor of your water drop when you lift the transparency film higher up. Does the magnification factor change when you lift the transparency higher?
Could you find ways to make the magnification factor very big? Repeat the activity, this time using a larger water drop. What happens to the curvature of the top surface of the water drop when you increase the size of the drop? Is it more, less or similarly curved? Do bigger water drops yield a different magnification factor? Extra: What do you think would be the optimum water drop size and its height above the newspaper to increase the readability of your chosen newspaper line? Would you choose the same conditions if you were investigating the details of an insect?
Extra: Go around the house or the garden looking at objects through your new magnification glass. The true angles subtended at different distances by the mean target size 2.
The adjustable square at a viewing distance of Classical SDI did not hold precisely in air: the targets were judged to be close to their physical distance, but slightly smaller than their linear size. Classical SDI held better in water: the targets were judged to be close both to their optical distance and to their true linear size.
The water judgements were thus not a simple optical transformation of the air judgements. The relationship is illustrated in Figure 7 , where the ratio of judged to true linear size is plotted against the ratio of judged to true total viewing distance in air or to the equivalent optical distance in water, plus The air and water ratios are clearly not part of the same distribution, and the water ratios are closer to SDI than the air ratios.
It is clear that perceptual SDI did not hold at all in this experiment, and cannot be used to explain discrepancies in classical SDI. The matched angular sizes scarcely differed from the matched linear sizes, and were much smaller than required for a true angular match Figure 6. They were also much smaller than required for consistency with perceptual SDI.
For example, the mean linear size judgement in air was 2. Similar arguments apply in water: the mean linear size judgement was 2. The discrepancy from classical SDI can also be seen by comparing the water and air judgements with each other, and disregarding the physical values.
The linear size ratio was 1. The angular size ratio was 1. The distance settings were very close to the true distance in air and the optical distance in water. This is to be expected for hidden tactile reaching at close range, with binocular vision for the target. The errors found in other experiments usually arise from the use of numerical estimates or further viewing distances. The size settings in air were inconsistent with classical SDI in that the linear size judgements were too small in relation to the slight underestimation of distance.
Under-size matches may have occurred because the adjustable and standard targets differed in some physical aspect that made the adjustable target appear relatively large. One possible factor is luminance contrast: the black adjustable square was surrounded by bright white plastic, whereas the standard targets were displayed as isolated black squares against distant backgrounds of dull white cardboard.
Another possible factor is size contrast: the adjustable target was presented within a white surround 20 x 20 cm at the same distance as the target No clear predictions can be made for either contrast effect.
Other reasons for under-size matches might be procedural rather than visual. Starting position may have had an effect. The observers always adjusted the variable target upwards from zero at the start; but any bias would be small, because they typically made several adjustments before settling on a match.
Another procedural bias is the "error of the standard" - the different values obtained depending on which of two targets is adjusted and which is the standard see discussion by Kaufman and Rock However, there is usually a tendency to overestimate the standard, which is the opposite of our result. This error is often confounded with the distance of the adjustable target, which is normally closer than the standard. Our experiment was unusual in reversing the distances, and this may be a very important factor.
Measurements of perceived angular size show an increase with viewing distance , and this could explain the relatively large perceived angular size or relatively small settings of the distant adjustable target. The discrepancy between these and previous findings may be entirely due to the reversal of the usual relative distances of the standard and adjustable targets.
Whatever the reason for the slight underestimation of the linear size of the targets, perceptual SDI might have been upheld if the angular judgements were proportionately smaller than the true angle. In fact, they were disproportionately smaller, being slightly smaller than the linear matches instead of larger.
The observers appear to have had great difficulty in making angular matches, despite the use of only one eye. We have to conclude that angular size cannot be consciously perceived at such close distances, or that it cannot be measured by the method we employed The linear size judgements in water were greater than the air judgements by a factor of 1.
These results differ from the experiments reported in the introduction Table 1 , where linear size in water was overestimated less than was the optical distance. However, distance judgements were obtained for only four of these experiments, and the findings may vary with the method of measurement.
Alternatively, the difference may be due to the very short viewing distances used in the present experiment. The ratios of water to air judgements in this experiment give little support to either classical or perceptual SDI. Classical SDI was not supported because the linear size ratios were larger than the negligible overestimation of the optical distance. It could be argued that perceptual SDI was supported because the ratio of water to air angular judgements was similar to that for linear judgements.
However, this argument is not convincing because the linear and angular judgements were almost identical, and the angular judgements were much smaller than the required values. The likelihood of establishing the truth of perceptual SDI remains small unless a satisfactory measure of perceived angular size can be devised.
Attempts to measure SDI rest on the assumption that there exists a unitary perceptual spatial metric that obeys the rules of geometry. The only problem, then, is how to obtain accurate and commensurate measures of perceived linear size, angular size and distance.
On this view, the breakdown of SDI results from flawed measurement procedures. That assumption may be overoptimistic. There may be different spatial metrics for vision and touch, or for the dorsal and ventral visual streams for reviews Furthermore, the spatial metrics or the relation between different metrics undoubtedly change during adaptation to optical distortions.
The explanatory difficulties are shared by size perception in air. Do we perceive angular and linear size simultaneously; or first one and then calculate the other by taking distance into account?
Introspective evidence suggests that there is only one type of perceived size at any one time, and experimental evidence suggests that it may correspond more closely to angular size under some circumstances and linear size under other circumstances.
Kaneko and Uchikawa 24 have also argued that the two types of size judgement depend on different cues. At the short viewing distances used in our experiments, linear size judgements were more veridical than angular judgements, which implies that observers perceived linear rather than angular size. Longer viewing distances might well produce different results.
The distinction between angular and linear size has been questioned. For example, Stratton 25 p. Rock 26 made a similar point regarding size transformations, while Gibson 27 p.
Our data do not provide unequivocal support for any of these views. It is probably best to abandon all geometrical approaches, and accept that perceived size is affected by a variety of factors. These factors include angular size, relative size, familiar size and perceived distance.
Underwater enlargement is primarily caused by angular magnification, but its effect is reduced by all those factors that lead to perceptual adaptation.
This project was conducted by the second author in partial fulfilment of her Honours degree requirements. We should like to thank John Russell for building the apparatus, and Ranald Macdonald for statistical advice. We are grateful to Lloyd Kaufman for comments on a draft of this paper. Abrir menu Brasil. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia. Abrir menu. Helen E. Ross Shazia Nawaz. Por que objetos parecem maiores debaixo d'agua? Visual space perception: A primer.
Cambridge: MIT Press, The current status of the size-distance hypotheses. Psychol Bull ; Higashiyama A, Shimono K. How accurate is size and distance perception for very far terrestrial objects?
Function and causality.
0コメント