Literature DB >> 17624117

Inaccurate representation of the ground surface beyond a texture boundary.

Bing Wu1, Zijiang J He, Teng Leng Ooi.   

Abstract

The sequential-surface-integration-process (SSIP) hypothesis was proposed to elucidate how the visual system constructs the ground-surface representation in the intermediate distance range (He et al, 2004 Perception 33 789-806). According to the hypothesis, the SSIP constructs an accurate representation of the near ground surface by using reliable near depth cues. The near ground representation then serves as a template for integrating the adjacent surface patch by using the texture gradient information as the predominant depth cue. By sequentially integrating the surface patches from near to far, the visual system obtains the global ground representation. A critical prediction of the SSIP hypothesis is that, when an abrupt texture-gradient change exists between the near and far ground surfaces, the SSIP can no longer accurately represent the far surface. Consequently, the representation of the far surface will be slanted upward toward the frontoparallel plane (owing to the intrinsic bias of the visual system), and the egocentric distance of a target on the far surface will be underestimated. Our previous findings in the real 3-D environment have shown that observers underestimated the target distance across a texture boundary. Here, we used the virtual-reality system to first test distance judgments with a distance-matching task. We created the texture boundary by having virtual grass- and cobblestone-textured patterns abutting on a flat (horizontal) ground surface in experiment 1, and by placing a brick wall to interrupt the continuous texture gradient of a flat grass surface in experiment 2. In both instances, observers underestimated the target distance across the texture boundary, compared to the homogeneous-texture ground surface (control). Second, we tested the proposal that the far surface beyond the texture boundary is perceived as slanted upward. For this, we used a virtual checkerboard-textured ground surface that was interrupted by a texture boundary. We found that not only was the target distance beyond the texture boundary underestimated relative to the homogeneous-texture condition, but the far surface beyond the texture boundary was also perceived as relatively slanted upward (experiment 3). Altogether, our results confirm the predictions of the SSIP hypothesis.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17624117      PMCID: PMC4000708          DOI: 10.1068/p5693

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perception        ISSN: 0301-0066            Impact factor:   1.490


  31 in total

1.  Use of interreflection and shadow for surface contact.

Authors:  C Madison; W Thompson; D Kersten; P Shirley; B Smits
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-02

2.  Distance perception mediated through nested contact relations among surfaces.

Authors:  J C Meng; H A Sedgwick
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-01

Review 3.  Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology.

Authors:  J M Loomis; J J Blascovich; A C Beall
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  1999-11

4.  Asymmetry in 3-D perceptual organization: ground-like surface superior to ceiling-like surface.

Authors:  J S McCarley; Z J He
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2000-04

5.  Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon.

Authors:  T L Ooi; B Wu; Z J He
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-11-08       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Distance perception across spatial discontinuities.

Authors:  J C Meng; H A Sedgwick
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-01

7.  Accommodation, occlusion, and disparity matching are used to guide reaching: a comparison of actual versus virtual environments.

Authors:  G P Bingham; A Bradley; M Bailey; R Vinner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Judging distance across texture discontinuities.

Authors:  Cary S Feria; Myron L Braunstein; George J Andersen
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.490

9.  Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information.

Authors:  Bing Wu; Teng Leng Ooi; Zijiang J He
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-03-04       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Perceptual space in the dark affected by the intrinsic bias of the visual system.

Authors:  Teng Leng Ooi; Bing Wu; Zijiang J He
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.490

View more
  10 in total

1.  Perceived slant of binocularly viewed large-scale surfaces: a common model from explicit and implicit measures.

Authors:  Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Environmental surfaces and the compression of perceived visual space.

Authors:  Zheng Bian; George J Andersen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  The visible ground surface as a reference frame for scaling binocular depth of a target in midair.

Authors:  Jun Wu; Liu Zhou; Pan Shi; Zijiang J He; Teng Leng Ooi
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  The advantage of a ground surface in the representation of visual scenes.

Authors:  Zheng Bian; George J Andersen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  The foggy effect of egocentric distance in a nonverbal paradigm.

Authors:  Bo Dong; Airui Chen; Yuting Zhang; Yangyang Zhang; Ming Zhang; Tianyang Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  The visual system's intrinsic bias and knowledge of size mediate perceived size and location in the dark.

Authors:  Liu Zhou; Zijiang J He; Teng Leng Ooi
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  The visual system's intrinsic bias influences space perception in the impoverished environment.

Authors:  Jun Wu; Zijiang J He; Teng Leng Ooi
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Contributions of monocular and binocular cues to distance discrimination in natural scenes.

Authors:  Brian C McCann; Mary M Hayhoe; Wilson S Geisler
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  A day at the beach: Does visually perceived distance depend on the energetic cost of walking?

Authors:  Brittany A Baxter; William H Warren
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  Egocentric Distance Perception Disorder in Amblyopia.

Authors:  Bo Dong; Airui Chen; Tianyang Zhang; Ming Zhang
Journal:  Psychol Belg       Date:  2021-06-21
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.