This empirical evaluation aimed to investigate how size perception differs between OST AR and the real world, focusing on two judgment methods: verbal reports and physical judgments. Using a within-subjects experimental design, participants viewed target objects in different sizes in both AR and real-world conditions and estimated their sizes using verbal and physical judgment methods across multiple trials. The study addressed two key hypotheses: (H1) that size perception in AR would differ from the Real World, potentially due to rendering limitations in OST-HMDs, and (H2) that verbal reports and physical judgments would yield different levels of accuracy due to distinct cognitive and perceptual processes involved in each method. Our findings supported these hypotheses, revealing key differences in size perception between the two judgment methods and viewing conditions. Participants consistently underestimated object sizes when using verbal reports in both AR and real-world conditions, with more pronounced errors in AR. In contrast, physical judgments yielded more accurate size estimates under both viewing conditions. Notably, the accuracy of verbal reports decreased as target sizes increased, a trend that was particularly evident in AR. These results underscore the perceptual challenges associated with verbal size judgments in AR and their potential limitations in applications requiring precise size estimations. By highlighting the differences in accuracy and consistency between verbal and physical judgment methods, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of size perception in OST AR and real-world contexts.

Many AR applications require users to perceive, estimate and calibrate to the size of objects presented in the scene. Distortions in size perception in AR could potentially influence the effectiveness of skills transferred from the AR to the real world. We investigated the after-effects or carry-over effects of calibration of size perception in AR to the real world (RW), by providing feedback and an opportunity for participants to correct their judgments in AR. In an empirical evaluation, we employed a three-phase experiment design. In the pretest phase, participants made size estimations to target objects concurrently using both verbal reports and physical judgment in RW as a baseline. Then, they estimated the size of targets, and then were provided with feedback and subsequently corrected their judgments in a calibration phase. Followed by which, participants made size estimates to target objects in the real world. Our findings revealed that the carryover effects of calibration successfully transferred from AR to RW in both verbal reports and physical judgment methods.