Literature DB >> 3620534

Probing depth in monocular images.

K A Stevens, A Brookes.   

Abstract

It is generally expected that depth (distance) is the internal representational primitive that corresponds to much of the perception of 3D. We tested this assumption in monocular surface stimuli that are devoid of distance information (due to orthographic projection and the chosen surface shape, with perspective projection used as a control) and yet are vividly three-dimensional. Slant judgments were found to be in close correspondence with the actual geometric slant of the stimuli; the spatial orientation of the surfaces was perceived accurately. The apparent depth in these stimuli was then tested by superimposing a stereo depth probe over the monocular surface. In both the perspective and orthographic projection the gradient of perceived depth, measured by matching the apparent depth of the stereo probe with that of the monocular surface at a series of locations, was substantial. The experiments demonstrate that in orthographic projection the visual system can compute from local surface orientation a depth quantity that is commensurate with the relative depth derived from stereo disparity. The depth data suggests that, at least in the near field, the zero value for relative depth lies at the same absolute depth as the stereo horopter (locus of zero stereo disparity). Relative to this zero value, the depth-from-slant computation seems to provide an estimate of distance information that is independent of the absolute distance to the surface.

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3620534     DOI: 10.1007/bf00319515

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Cybern        ISSN: 0340-1200            Impact factor:   2.086


  8 in total

1.  The constancy of stereoscopic depth.

Authors:  H WALLACH; C ZUCKERMAN
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  1963-09

2.  Perception of depth: processing of simple positional disparity as a function of viewing distance.

Authors:  M Ritter
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1979-03

3.  Visual illusions.

Authors:  R L Gregory
Journal:  Sci Am       Date:  1968-11       Impact factor: 2.142

4.  Depth perception in Pandora's box and size illusion: evolution with age.

Authors:  J Chevrier; A Delorme
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Binocular cues in the perception of distance of a point source of light.

Authors:  J D Morrison; T C Whiteside
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 1.490

6.  Slant-tilt: the visual encoding of surface orientation.

Authors:  K A Stevens
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.086

7.  Surface tilt (the direction of slant): a neglected psychophysical variable.

Authors:  K A Stevens
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1983-03

8.  Depth perception in linear and inverse perspective pictures.

Authors:  D R Topper; W A Simpson
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.490

  8 in total
  10 in total

1.  Surface perception in pictures.

Authors:  J J Koenderink; A J van Doorn; A M Kappers
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1992-11

2.  Interpolation in structure from motion.

Authors:  A Saidpour; M L Braunstein; D D Hoffman
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1992-02

3.  Internal curvature signal and noise in low- and high-level vision.

Authors:  Timothy D Sweeny; Marcia Grabowecky; Yee Joon Kim; Satoru Suzuki
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Angle alignment evokes perceived depth and illusory surfaces.

Authors:  Robert Shapley; Marianne Maertens
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Pictorial surface attitude and local depth comparisons.

Authors:  J J Koenderink; A J van Doorn; A M Kappers
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-02

6.  Perception of local orientation from shaded images.

Authors:  F E Pollick; H Watanabe; M Kawato
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-07

7.  Interpolation across surface discontinuities in structure from motion.

Authors:  A Saidpour; M L Braunstein; D D Hoffman
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-06

8.  Is vision metric? Comment on Lappin and Love (1992).

Authors:  Z Pizlo; M Salach-Golyska
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-02

9.  Learning to use illumination gradients as an unambiguous cue to three dimensional shape.

Authors:  Glen Harding; Julie M Harris; Marina Bloj
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The Veiled Virgin illustrates visual segmentation of shape by cause.

Authors:  Flip Phillips; Roland W Fleming
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 11.205

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.