Literature DB >> 24097046

Depth compression based on mis-scaling of binocular disparity may contribute to angular expansion in perceived optical slant.

Zhi Li1, Frank H Durgin.   

Abstract

Three studies, involving a total of 145 observers examined quantitative theories of the overestimation of perceived optical slant. The first two studies investigated the depth/width anisotropies on positive and negative slant in both pitch and yaw at 2 and 8 m using calibrated immersive virtual environments. Observers made judgments of the relative lengths of extents that were frontal with those that were in depth. The physical aspect ratio that was perceived as 1:1 was determined for each slant. The observed anisotropies can be modeled by assuming overestimation in perceived slant. Three one-parameter slant perception models (angular expansion, affine depth compression caused by mis-scaling of binocular disparity, and intrinsic bias) were compared. The angular expansion and the affine depth compression models provided significantly better fits to the aspect ratio data than the intrinsic bias model did. The affine model required depth compression at the 2 m distance; however, that was much more than the depth compression measured directly in the third study using the same apparatus. The present results suggest that depth compression based on mis-scaling of binocular disparity may contribute to slant overestimation, especially as viewing distance increases, but also suggest that a functional rather than mechanistic account may be more appropriate for explaining biases in perceived slant in near space.

Entities:  

Keywords:  non-Euclidean; orientation; slant; space perception; surface layout

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24097046      PMCID: PMC3791958          DOI: 10.1167/13.12.3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  42 in total

1.  Visual perception of extent and the geometry of visual space.

Authors:  John M Foley; Nilton P Ribeiro-Filho; José A Da Silva
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Visual space under free viewing conditions.

Authors:  Michelle J A Doumen; Astrid M L Kappers; Jan J Koenderink
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-10

3.  Binocular depth discrimination and estimation beyond interaction space.

Authors:  Robert S Allison; Barbara J Gillam; Elia Vecellio
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 4.  A critical review of Luneburg's model with regard to global structure of visual space.

Authors:  T Indow
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Horizontal and vertical distance perception: the discorded-orientation theory.

Authors:  A Higashiyama
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-02

6.  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

7.  Stereoscopic depth constancy depends on the subject's task.

Authors:  A Glennerster; B J Rogers; M F Bradshaw
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions.

Authors:  J W Philbeck; J M Loomis
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  The underestimation of egocentric distance: evidence from frontal matching tasks.

Authors:  Zhi Li; John Phillips; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Misperception of aspect ratio in binocularly viewed surfaces.

Authors:  Paul B Hibbard; Ross Goutcher; Lisa M O'Kane; Peter Scarfe
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  7 in total

1.  Does perceived angular declination contribute to perceived optical slant on level ground?

Authors:  Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  A large-scale horizontal-vertical illusion produced with small objects separated in depth.

Authors:  Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Counterpoint.

Authors:  Frank H Durgin
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-03

4.  Large perceptual distortions of locomotor action space occur in ground-based coordinates: Angular expansion and the large-scale horizontal-vertical illusion.

Authors:  Brennan J Klein; Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Anchoring in action: manual estimates of slant are powerfully biased toward initial hand orientation and are correlated with verbal report.

Authors:  Dennis M Shaffer; Eric McManama; Charles Swank; Morgan Williams; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Perceived azimuth direction is exaggerated: Converging evidence from explicit and implicit measures.

Authors:  Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Anisotropic perception of slant from texture gradient: Size contrast hypothesis.

Authors:  Atsuki Higashiyama; Tadashi Yamazaki
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.199

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.