Literature DB >> 2144578

Perceived depth inversion of smoothly curved surfaces due to image orientation.

F D Reichel1, J T Todd.   

Abstract

A relative depth judgement task was used to distinguish perceived reversals in depth due to image orientation from spontaneous reversals such as those observed with a Necker cube. Results demonstrate that inversion effects due to image orientation can occur for several different types of pictorial representation and that many of these effects are incompatible with traditional explanations involving a perceptual bias for overhead illumination. When this bias was neutralized by placing the light source at the point of observation, the effects of image orientation were just as large as with overhead illumination. Similar results were also obtained for surfaces depicted with texture or motion in which all relevant shading information was eliminated. These results can be explained by a perceptual bias for backward slanting surfaces, but additional evidence suggests that this bias can be attenuated by the presence of smooth occlusion contours.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2144578

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  10 in total

1.  The perception of 3-dimensional affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences.

Authors:  J T Todd; P Bressan
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1990-11

2.  On the perception of shape from shading.

Authors:  D A Kleffner; V S Ramachandran
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1992-07

3.  The visual perception of smoothly curved surfaces from minimal apparent motion sequences.

Authors:  J T Todd; J F Norman
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1991-12

4.  The development of the ability of infants to utilize static cues to create and access representations of object shape.

Authors:  Aki Tsuruhara; Tadamasa Sawada; So Kanazawa; Masami K Yamaguchi; Sherryse Corrow; Albert Yonas
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Is interpolation cognitively encapsulated? Measuring the effects of belief on Kanizsa shape discrimination and illusory contour formation.

Authors:  Brian P Keane; Hongjing Lu; Thomas V Papathomas; Steven M Silverstein; Philip J Kellman
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2012-03-20

6.  Is the perception of 3D shape from shading based on assumed reflectance and illumination?

Authors:  James T Todd; Eric J L Egan; Flip Phillips
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2014-09-18

7.  Turning water into rock: The inverted waves effect.

Authors:  Jukka Häkkinen; Lauri Gröhn
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2016-02-01

8.  The Southampton-York Natural Scenes (SYNS) dataset: Statistics of surface attitude.

Authors:  Wendy J Adams; James H Elder; Erich W Graf; Julian Leyland; Arthur J Lugtigheid; Alexander Muryy
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  The perception and misperception of optical defocus, shading, and shape.

Authors:  Scott Wj Mooney; Phillip J Marlow; Barton L Anderson
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 8.140

10.  Shading Beats Binocular Disparity in Depth from Luminance Gradients: Evidence against a Maximum Likelihood Principle for Cue Combination.

Authors:  Chien-Chung Chen; Christopher William Tyler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.