Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Psychology
Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

How the eye measures reality and virtual reality

Profile image of James E CuttingJames E Cutting

1997, Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, & Computers

Abstract

If virtual reality systems are to make good on their name, designers must know how people perceive space in natural environments, in photographs, and in cinema. Perceivers understand the layout of a cluttered natural environment through the use of nine or more sources of information, each based on different assumptions—occlusion, height in the visual field, relative size, relative density, aerial per- spective, binocular disparities, accommodation, convergence, and motion perspective. The relative utility of these sources at different distances is compared, using their ordinal depth-threshold func- tions. From these, three classes of space around a moving observer are postulated: personal space, ac- tion space, and vista space. Within each, a smaller number of sources act in consort, with different rel- ative strengths. Given the general ordinality of the sources, these spaces are likely to be affine in character, stretching and collapsing with viewing conditions. One of these conditions is controlled by lens length in photography and cinematography or by field-of-view commands in computer graphics. These have striking effects on many of these sources of information and, consequently, on how the lay- out of a scene is perceived.

Related papers

The perception of spatial layout in real and virtual worlds
Peter Hancock

1997

As human-machine interfaces grow more immersive and graphically-oriented, virtual environment systems become more prominent as the medium for humanmachine communication. Often, virtual environments (VE) are built to provide exact metrical representations of existing or proposed physical spaces. H owever, it is not known how individu als develop representational models of these spaces in which they are immersed and how those models may be distorted with respect to both the virtual and real-world equivalents. To evaluate the process of model development, the present experiment examined participant's ability to reproduce a complex spatial layout of objects having experienced them previously under diOEerent viewing conditions. The layout consisted of nine common objects arranged on a¯at plane. These objects could be viewed in a free binocular virtual condition, a free binocular real-world condition, and in a static monocular view of the real world. The ®rst two allowed active exploration of the environment while the latter condition allowed the participant only a passive opportunity to observe from a single viewpoint. Viewing conditions were a between-subject variable with 10 participants randomly assigned to each condition. Performance was assessed using mapping accuracy and triadic comparisons of relative inter-object distances. M apping results showed a signi®cant eOEect of viewing condition where, interestingly, the static monocular condition was superior to both the active virtual and real binocular conditions. Results for the triadic comparisons showed a signi®cant interaction for gender by viewing condition in which males were more accurate than females. These results suggest that the situation model resulting from interaction with a virtual environment was indistinguishable from interaction with real objects at least within the constraints of the present procedure.

View PDFchevron_right
Distance Perception in Consumer Virtual Reality
Rebecca L Hornsey

Journal of Vision

View PDFchevron_right
Selected Technical and Perceptual Aspects of Virtual Reality Displays
Bernhard Riecke

2006

View PDFchevron_right
Depth Perception in Virtual Reality: Distance Estimations in Peri- and Extrapersonal Space
Torsten Kuhlen

CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008

The present study investigated depth perception in virtual environments. Twenty-three participants verbally estimated ten distances between 40 cm and 500 cm in three different virtual environments in two conditions: (1) only one target was presented or (2) ten targets were presented at the same time. Additionally, the presence of a metric aid was varied. A questionnaire assessed subjective ratings about physical complaints (e.g., headache), the experience in the virtual world (e.g., presence), and the experiment itself (self-evaluation of the estimations). Results show that participants underestimate the virtual distances but are able to perceive the distances in the right metric order even when only very simple virtual environments are presented. Furthermore, interindividual differences and intraindividual stabilities can be found among participants, and neither the three different virtual environments nor the metric aid improved depth estimations. Estimation performance is better in peripersonal than in extrapersonal space. In contrast, subjective ratings provide a preferred space: a closed room with visible floor, ceiling, and walls.

View PDFchevron_right
Depth Perception in Virtual Reality Systems: Effect of Screen Distance, Environment Richness and Display Factors
Christophe Bourdin

IEEE Access, 2020

Viewing a scene on a screen display differs greatly from viewing it in the real world. The visual information is conveyed via a flat screen at a fixed distance, and this screen distance can influence how viewers perceive depth in stereograms in conventional stereoscopic displays. This study investigated whether screen distance influences perceived depth in Virtual Reality (VR) systems providing additional motion parallax information. Participants adjusted the depth of a vertical dihedron displayed as a random-dot stereogram. In a first experiment, the stimulus was presented either alone in a gray untextured background or in a cue-rich environment. We found that despite the extra motion parallax information in VR systems compared to conventional stereo-displays, physical screen distance still affected depth perception substantially at longer simulated distances. However, the effect lessened when observers were immersed in a rich and structured environment, possibly allowing them to use other depth cues. A second experiment assessed the influence of potentially potent display-related factors (resolution, display orientation, luminance non-uniformity, and specular reflection), as well as the effect of accommodation-vergence (A-V) conflict size. Depth perception was compared between a Head-Mounted Display (HMD) and an L-shaped system, and between a CAVE and an L-shaped system. These comparisons between CAVE-like VR systems and HMDs revealed that A-V conflict and inclusion of a rich environment were the major factors impacting depth perception. These results have practical and methodological implications for the reliable use of VR systems, especially where accurate depth-matching is involved.

View PDFchevron_right
Judgments of the distance to nearby virtual objects: interaction of viewing conditions and accommodative demand
Stephen Ellis

Presence (Cambridge, Mass.), 1997

Ten subjects adjusted a real-object probe to match the distance of nearby virtual objects optically presented via a see-through, helmet-mounted display. Monocular, binocular, and stereoscopic viewing conditions were used with two levels of required focus. Observed errors may be related to changes in the subjects' binocular convergence. The results suggest ways in which virtual objects may be presented with improved spatial fidelity.

View PDFchevron_right
Depth Perception Within Virtual Environments: Comparison Between two Display Technologies
Chellali Ryad

International Journal On …, 2010

Depth perception is one of the key issues in virtual reality. Many questions within this area are still under investigation including the egocentric distance misestimation. In this paper we describe an experiment confirming distance underestimation from another point of view. The approach we developed is based on a very simple task: subjects had to compare relative depths of two virtual objects. The experiment compared performance using head mounted display and stereoscopic widescreen display to evaluate which visual cues subjects use to estimate depth of virtual objects. To minimize motoric effects, subjects were seated and their estimations were only verbal. Likewise, to avoid the well known effects of apparent size, namely the size-distance invariance, the experiment was also performed with conflict sequences: the presented objects had the same apparent sizes with different depths or the same depth but different physical sizes. The obtained results show significant differences between the two devices and confirm the distance misestimation phenomenon for head mounted display. Moreover, changing the background color or the shape of the presented objects also had an influence on subjects' performance.

View PDFchevron_right
Spatial Understanding in Immersive Virtual Environments
Marc Aurel Schnabel

International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2003

In this study, we examined the perception and understanding of spatial volumes within immersive and non-immersive virtual environments by comparison with representation using conventional media. We examined the relative effectiveness of these conditions in enabling the translation to a tangible representation, through a series of design experiments. Students experienced, assessed, and analysed spatial relationships of volumes and spaces and subsequently constructed real models of these spaces. The goal of our study is to identify how designers perceive space in Virtual Environments (VEs). We explore issues of quality, accuracy and understanding of reconstructing architectural space and forms. By comparison of the same spatial performance task undertaken within a Head Mounted Display, screen-based and real 2D environment, we are able to draw some conclusions about spatial understanding in immersive VE activity.

View PDFchevron_right
Immersive virtual environments as a tool for exploring perceptional space
Marc Aurel Schnabel

International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems, 2017

Digital methodologies evolve as quickly as the technologies that sustain them. Virtual reality (VR) environments are experiencing a shift from technology still in development, to a fully-fledged digital instrument with VR consumer products accessible to and usable by the general public. This paper explores the parallelism of architecture and psychology by assessing their combined impact on a user's perception of spatial qualities in an Immersive Virtual Environment (IVE). A framework for assessing the effects of densified office space is proposed. This paper concludes with a discussion on the impact of IVEs on human perception, and how this will help architectural and non-architectural disciplines gain an understanding of 'perceptional space' .

View PDFchevron_right
Immersive Virtual Environments as a Tool to Explore Perceptional Space
Marc Aurel Schnabel

Parallelism in Architecture, Environment And Computing Techniques, (PACT), 2016

Space Digital methodologies evolve as quickly as the technologies that sustain them. Virtual reality (VR) environments are experiencing a shift from technology still in development to a fully-fledged digital instrument with the release of VR consumer products accessible and usable by the general public. This paper explores the parallelism between architecture and psychology by assessing their combined ability to effect a user's perception of spatial qualities using an Immersive Virtual Environment (IVE). A review of the software and hardware required in IVE technology is conducted and from this a framework is proposed by which to assess the impacts of densified office space. This paper concludes with a discussion on the impact that IVE's can have on human perception and how this will help architectural and non-architectural disciplines gain an understanding of 'perceptional space'.

View PDFchevron_right

References (123)

  1. Anderson, B. L., & Nakayama, K. (1994). Towards a general theory of stereopsis: Binocular matching, occluding contours and fusion. Psychological Review, 101, 414-445.
  2. Arditi, A. (1986). Binocular vision. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.) Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 23:1 to 23:41). New York: Wiley.
  3. Baird, J. C., & Biersdorf, W. R. (1967). Quantitative functions for size and distance. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 161-166.
  4. Baird, J. C., & Wagner, M. (1983). Modeling the creation of cognitive maps. In H. L. Pick, Jr., & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 321-366). New York: Plenum.
  5. Barlow, H. B. (1978). The efficiency of detecting changes of density in random dot patterns. Vision Research, 18, 637-650.
  6. Battro, A. M., Netto, S. P., & Rozestraten, R. J. A. (1983). Depth perception of surfaces of variable curvature in visual space: Looking for conventions in Pandora's box. Perception, 5, 9-23.
  7. Bell, J. C. (1993). Zaccolini's theory of color perspective. Art Bulletin, 75, 91-112.
  8. Biederman, C. (1948). Art as the evolution of visual knowledge. Red Wing, MN: Charles Biederman.
  9. Bingham, G. (1993). Form as information about scale: Perceiving the size of trees. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1139-1161.
  10. Birnbaum, M. H. (1983). Scale convergence as a principle for the study of perception. In H. Geissler (Ed.), Modern issues in perception (pp. 319-335). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  11. Blank, A. A. (1978). Metric geometry in human binocular vision: The- ory and fact. In E. E. J. Leeuwenberg & H. F. Buffart (Eds.), Formal theories of visual perception (pp. 82-102). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
  12. Blatt, S. J. (1984). Continuity and change in art. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. Boring, E. G. (1942). Sensation and perception in the history of ex- perimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  14. Braunstein, M. L. (1962). Depth perception in rotating dot patterns: Effects of numerosity and perspective. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology, 64, 415-420.
  15. Braunstein, M. L. (1976). Depth perception through motion. New York: Academic Press.
  16. Bülthoff, H. H., & Mallot, H. A. (1988). Interpreting depth mod- ules: Stereo and shading. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 5, 1749-1758.
  17. Burton, H. (1945). The optics of Euclid. Journal of the Optical Soci- ety of America, 35, 357-372.
  18. Busey, T. A., Brady, N. P., & Cutting, J. E. (1990). Compensation is unnecessary for the perception of faces in slanted pictures. Percep- tion & Psychophysics, 48, 1-11.
  19. Cavanagh, P., & Leclerc, Y. G. (1990). Shape from shadows. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 3-27.
  20. Chapanis, A., & McCleary, R. A. (1955). Interposition as a cue for the perception of relative distance. American Journal of Psychology, 48, 113-132.
  21. Chauvet, J.-M., Brunel Deschamps, E., & Hillaire, C. (1995). La grotte Chauvet à Vallon-Pont-d'Arc. Paris: Seuil.
  22. Clottes, J. (1995). Les cavernes di Niaux. Paris: Seuil.
  23. Clottes, J. (1996, January). Le grotte ornate del paleolitico. Le Scienze: edizione italiana di Scientific American, 329(1), 62-68.
  24. Cole, A. (1992). Perspective. London: Dorling Kindersley.
  25. Cook, M. (1978). Judgment of distance on a plane surface. Perception & Psychophysics, 23, 85-90.
  26. Cutting, J. E. (1986). Perception with an eye for motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
  27. Cutting, J. E. (1987). Rigidity in cinema seen from the front row, side aisle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 323-334.
  28. Cutting, J. E. (1988). Affine distortions in pictorial space: Some pre- dictions for Goldstein (1987) that La Gournerie (1959) might have made. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 305-311.
  29. Cutting, J. E. (1991). Four ways to reject directed perception. Ecolog- ical Psychology, 3, 25-34.
  30. Cutting, J. E., & Millard, R. M. (1984). Three gradients and the per- ception of flat and curved surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: General, 113, 198-216.
  31. Cutting, J. E., Springer, K., Braren, P., & Johnson, S. (1992). Wayfinding on foot from information in retinal, not optical, flow. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 41-72.
  32. Cutting, J. E., & Vishton, P. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of dif- ferent information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Per- ception of space and motion (pp. 69-117). San Diego: Academic Press.
  33. Daniels, N. (1974). Thomas Reid's inquiry. New York: Burt Franklin.
  34. DaSilva, J. A. (1985). Scales of perceived egocentric distance in a large open field: Comparison of three psychophysical methods. American Journal of Psychology, 98, 119-144.
  35. Dosher, B. A., Sperling, G., & Wurst, S. A. (1986). Tradeoffs be- tween stereopsis and proximity luminance covariation as determinants of perceived 3D structure. Vision Research, 26, 973-990.
  36. Dunn, B. E., Gray, G. C., & Thompson, D. (1965). Relative height on the picture-plane and depth perception. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 21, 227-236.
  37. Durgin, F. H. (1995). Texture density adaptation and the perceived nu- merosity and distribution of texture. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 149-169.
  38. Durgin, F. H., Proffitt, D. R., Olson, T. J., & Reinke, K. S. (1995). Comparing depth from motion with depth from binocular disparity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Perfor- mance, 21, 679-699.
  39. Duwaer, A. L., & van den Brink, G. (1981). What is the diplopia threshold? Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 295-309.
  40. Epstein, W. (1963). The influence of assumed size on apparent dis- tance. American Journal of Psychology, 76, 257-265.
  41. Farber, J., & Rosinski, R. R. (1978). Geometric transformations of pictured space. Perception, 7, 269-282.
  42. Ferris, S. H. (1972). Motion parallax and absolute distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95, 258-263.
  43. Fisher, S. K., & Ciuffreda, K. J. (1988). Accommodation and appar- ent distance. Perception, 17, 609-612.
  44. Flock, H. R. (1964). A possible optical basis for monocular slant per- ception. Psychological Review, 71, 380-391.
  45. Foley, J. M. (1991). Stereoscopic distance perception. In S. R. Ellis, M. K. Kaiser, & A. C. Grunwald (Eds.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (pp. 559-566). London: Taylor & Francis.
  46. Freeman, R. B. (1966). Absolute threshold for visual slant: The effect of size and retinal perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 170-176.
  47. Gerbino, W., Stultiens, C. J., & Troost, J. M. (1990). Transparent layer constancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per- ception & Performance, 16, 3-20.
  48. Gibson, J. J. (1950). Perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  49. Gogel, W. C. (1961). Convergence as a cue to absolute distance. Jour- nal of Psychology, 52, 287-301.
  50. Gogel, W. C., & Tietz, J. D. (1973). Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency. Perception & Psychophysics, 13, 284-292.
  51. Gombrich, E. H. (1995). Shadows: The depiction of cast shadows in Western art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  52. Graham, C. H., Baker, K. E., Hecht, M., & Lloyd, V. V. (1948). Fac- tors influencing thresholds for monocular movement parallax. Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 205-223.
  53. Grünbaum, A. (1973). Philosophical problems of space and time (2nd ed.). Boston: Reidel.
  54. Gulick, W. L., & Lawson, R. B. (1976). Human stereopsis. New York: Oxford University Press.
  55. Hagen, M. A. (1986). Varieties of realism: Geometries of representa- tional art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  56. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
  57. Helmholtz, H. von (1925). Physiological optics (3rd ed., Vol. 3; J. P. C. Southall, Trans.). Menasha, WI: The Optical Society of America. (Original work published 1867)
  58. Hobbs, J. A. (1991). Art in context (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich.
  59. Hochberg, J. (1971). Perception. In J. W. Kling & L. A. Riggs (Eds.), Handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 396-550). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  60. Hofsten, C. von (1976). The role of convergence in space perception. Vision Research, 16, 193-198.
  61. Indow, T. (1990). A critical review of Luneburg's model with regard to global structure of visual space. Psychological Review, 98, 430-453.
  62. Johansson, G. (1973). Monocular movement parallax and near-space perception. Perception, 2, 136-145.
  63. Julesz, B. (1971). Foundations of cyclopean perception. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.
  64. Kaplan, G. A. (1969). Kinetic disruption of optical texture: The per- ception of depth at an edge. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 193-198.
  65. Kersten, D., & Legge, G. (1983). Convergence accommodation. Jour- nal of the Optical Society of America, 73, 322-388.
  66. Kosslyn, S. M., Pick, H. L., & Fariello, G. R. (1974). Cognitive maps in children and men. Child Development, 45, 707-716.
  67. Kubovy, M. (1986). The psychology of perspective and renaissance art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Künnapas, T. (1968). Distance perception as a function of available vi- sual cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 523-529.
  69. Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., Johnston, E. B., & Young, M. (1995). Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination. Vision Re- search, 35, 389-412.
  70. Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., & Young, M. J. (1991). Psychophysi- cal estimation of the human depth combination rule. In P. S. Shenker (Ed.), Sensor fusion III: 3-D perception and recognition (Proceed- ings of the SPIE, Vol. 1383, pp. 247-254).
  71. Leibowitz, H. W., Shina, K., & Hennessy, R. T. (1972). Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy. Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 497-500.
  72. Lie, I. (1965). Convergence as a cue to perceived size and distance. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 6, 109-116.
  73. Loomis, J. M., DaSilva, J. A., Fujita, N., & Fukushima, S. S. (1992). Visual space perception and visually directed action. Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 906-921.
  74. Loomis, J. M., DaSilva, J. A., Philbeck, J. W., & Fukushima, S. S. (1996). Visual perception of location and distance. Current Direc- tions in Psychological Science, 5, 72-77.
  75. Lumsden, E. A. (1980). Problems of magnification and minification: An explanation of the distortions of distance, slant, and velocity. In M. Hagen (Ed.), The perception of pictures (Vol. 1, pp. 91-135). New York: Academic Press.
  76. Luneburg, R. K. (1947). Mathematical analysis of binocular vision. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  77. Lythgoe, J. N. (1979). The ecology of vision. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press.
  78. Marr, D. (1981). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
  79. Metelli, F. (1974). The perception of transparency. Scientific Ameri- can, 230(4), 90-98.
  80. Minnaert, M. (1993). Light and color outdoors. New York: Springer- Verlag.
  81. Morgan, M. W. (1968). Accommodation and convergence. American Journal of Optometry & Archives of American Academy of Optome- try, 45, 417-454.
  82. Nagata, S. (1991). How to reinforce perception of depth in single two- dimensional pictures. In S. R. Ellis, M. K. Kaiser, & A. C. Grunwald (Eds.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (pp. 527-545). London: Taylor & Francis.
  83. Norman, J. F., Todd, J. T., & Phillips, F. (1995). The perception of sur- face orientation from multiple sources of optical information. Per- ception & Psychophysics, 57, 629-636.
  84. Nougier, L. R. (1969). Art préhistorique. Paris: Librarie Générale Française.
  85. Ogle, K. O. (1952). On the limits of stereoscopic vision. Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology, 48, 50-60.
  86. Ogle, K. O. (1958). Note on stereoscopic acuity and observation dis- tance. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 48, 794-798.
  87. Pirenne, M. H. (1970). Optics, painting, & photography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  88. Proffitt, D. R., Rock, I., Hecht, H., & Schubert, J. (1992). Stereo- kinetic effect and its relation to the kinetic depth effect. Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 3-21.
  89. Purdy, J., & Gibson, E. J. (1955). Distance judgments by the method of fractionation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 374-380.
  90. Ratoosh, P. (1949). On interposition as cue for the perception of dis- tance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 35, 257-259.
  91. Richter, J. P. (1970). The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. New York: Dover Press. (Original translation published 1883)
  92. Rieser, J. J., Ashmead, D. H., Talor, C. R., & Youngquist, G. A. (1990). Visual perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets. Perception, 19, 675-689.
  93. Rogers, B. J., & Graham, M. (1979). Motion parallax as an indepen- dent cue for depth. Perception, 8, 125-134.
  94. Roscoe, S. N. (1984). Judgments of size and distance with imaging dis- plays. Human Factors, 27, 615-636.
  95. Ruspoli, M. (1986). Lascaux: Un nouveau regard. Paris: Bordas.
  96. Scharf, A. (1968). Art and photography. London: Penguin.
  97. Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  98. Suppes, P. (1977). Is visual space Euclidean? Synthèse, 35, 397-421.
  99. Swedlund, C. (1974). Photography: A handbook of history, materials, and processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  100. Teghtsoonian, R., & Teghtsoonian, M. (1970). Scaling apparent dis- tance in a natural outdoor setting. Psychonomic Science, 21, 215-216.
  101. Teichner, W. H., Kobrick, J. L., & Wehrkamp, R. F. (1955). The ef- fects of terrain and observation distance on relative depth perception. American Journal of Psychology, 68, 193-208.
  102. Tittle, J. S., Todd, J. T., Perotti, V. J., & Norman, J. F. (1995). The systematic distortion of perceived 3-D structure from motion and binocular stereopsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 663-677.
  103. Todd, J. T. (1985). Perception of structure from motion: Is projective correspondence of moving elements a necessary condition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 689-710.
  104. Todd, J. T., & Akerstrom, R. A. (1987). Perception of three-dimensional form from patterns of optical texture. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 242-255.
  105. Todd, J. T., & Reichel, F. D. (1989). Ordinal structure in the visual per- ception and cognition of smoothly curved surfaces. Psychological Review, 96, 643-657.
  106. Toulet, E. (1988). Cinématographie: Invention du siècle. Paris: Dé- couvertes Gallimard.
  107. Toye, R. C. (1986). The effect of viewing position on the perceived lay- out of space. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 85-92.
  108. van den Berg, A.V., & Brenner, E. (1994). Why two eyes are better than one for judgments of heading. Nature, 371, 700-702.
  109. Wagner, M. (1985). The metric of visual space. Perception & Psycho- physics, 38, 483-495.
  110. Wallach, H., & Karsh, E. B. (1963). Why the modification of stereo- scopic depth-perception is so rapid. American Journal of Psychol- ogy, 76, 413-420.
  111. Wallach, H., & Norris, C. M. (1963). Accommodation as a distance cue. American Journal of Psychology, 76, 659-664.
  112. Wallach, H., & O'Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 205-217.
  113. Wanger, L. R., Ferwerda, J. A., & Greenberg, D. P. (1992, May). Perceiving the spatial relationships in computer-generated images. IEEE Computer Graphics, 12, 44-59.
  114. Watson, J. S., Banks, M. S., Hofsten, C. von, & Royden, C. S. (1992). Gravity as a monocular cue for perception of absolute dis- tance and/or absolute size. Perception, 12, 259-266.
  115. Wheatstone, C. (1838). Contributions to the physiology of vision: I. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 128, 371-394.
  116. Wright, L. (1983). Perspective in perspective. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  117. Yonas, A., Craton, L. G., & Thompson, W. B. (1987). Relative mo- tion: Kinetic information for the order of depth at an edge. Percep- tion & Psychophysics, 41, 53-59.
  118. Yonas, A., & Granrud, C. E. (1985). The development of sensitivity to kinetic, binocular, and pictorial depth information in human in- fants. In D. Ingle & D. N. Lee (Eds.), Brain mechanisms and spatial vision (pp. 113-145). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
  119. Zegers, R. T. (1948). Monocular movement parallax thresholds as functions of field size, field position, and speed of stimulus move- ment. Journal of Psychology, 26, 477-498.
  120. There is some controversy over the dating of the Chauvet paintings. An early report of carbon dating in the press stated that they were 30,000 years old ("Les peintures de la grotte Chauvet datent de 30 000 ans avant nôtre ère," Le Monde, Juin 4/5, 1995). Later, however, Clottes (1996) reported that they were 20,000 years old. Regardless of which dating is correct, the Chauvet paintings are the oldest large collection of paleolithic art yet found.
  121. This approach contrasts with others in the literature. For example, Landy, Maloney, Johnston, and Young (1995) start by considering the sources that imply the strongest measurement scales, and use them to modify those with weaker scales.
  122. Relative size should not be confused with familiar size (see, e.g., Epstein, 1963), which relies on knowledge of the observer; relative size assumes only the presence of many similarly shaped and sized objects.
  123. The disparity function moves because depth is compressed while the distance between the eyes remains the same. This effectively makes disparities useful at greater depth in the scene. It could also serve to make things look a bit smaller, as discussed in connection with the stereograms of sequoias.

Related papers

Judgments of Object Size and Distance across Different Virtual Reality Environments: A Preliminary Study
Jyotsna Vaid

Applied Sciences, 2021

Emerging technologies offer the potential to expand the domain of the future workforce to extreme environments, such as outer space and alien terrains. To understand how humans navigate in such environments that lack familiar spatial cues this study examined spatial perception in three types of environments. The environments were simulated using virtual reality. We examined participants’ ability to estimate the size and distance of stimuli under conditions of minimal, moderate, or maximum visual cues, corresponding to an environment simulating outer space, an alien terrain, or a typical cityscape, respectively. The findings show underestimation of distance in both the maximum and the minimum visual cue environment but a tendency for overestimation of distance in the moderate environment. We further observed that depth estimation was substantially better in the minimum environment than in the other two environments. However, estimation of height was more accurate in the environment w...

View PDFchevron_right
What Visual Cues Do We Use to Perceive Depth in Virtual Environments?
Chellali Ryad

Intelligent Robotics and …, 2009

The abstract should summarize the contents of the paper using at least 70 and at most 150 words. It will be set in 9-point font size and be inset 1.0 cm from the right and left margins. There will be two blank lines before and after the Abstract. . . .

View PDFchevron_right
The Experience of Space in Full-Scale Models and Virtual Reality
Elisabeth Dalholm

2004

Do we experience the size and character of virtual spaces in the same way as real spaces? What impact has the meaning of a space, i.e. furniture and other clues to the use of a space, on our experience of it? This paper describes an experiment where the participants could navigate through a room, first on desktop-VR, then in full-scale VR (in a CAVE) and finally in a full-scale model. In a first phase the room was empty and only defined through walls, windows and doors. Later on furniture was added as well as colors and textures. The experiment was a pilot study and threw light on some questions which we intend to develop in further investigations. It showed that the participants used building components like doors and windows and furniture in the presentation on desktop VR for their estimation of the size of the room. In the CAVE and in the full-scale model the participants' bodies were the measure for their estimations. The experiment also hinted at that color and texture had ...

View PDFchevron_right
The shape and psychophysics of cinematic space
James E Cutting

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 1986

For the film goer who sits to the front and side of a movie theater, the virtual space "behind" the screen undergoes affine and perspective transformations. These transformations should, one would think, make the rigidity of objects on the screen very difficult to discern. Despite the fact that it has long been known that viewers are not very sensitive to such distortions, a phenome- non I call La Gournerie’s paradox, the effect is without a good theoretical account. Two possibili- ties are: (1) that viewers rectify the distortions of Euclidean space through the use of information about screen slant, and (2) that sufficient information is preserved under these transformations so that perception may be unperturbed. This paper presents preliminary arguments for the information-preservation view and introduces a new technique, that of using simulated projec- tion surfaces, whose use in experimental situations suggests that Euclidean rectification is not necessary.

View PDFchevron_right
Contributions of pictorial and binocular cues to the perception of distance in virtual reality
Rebecca L Hornsey

Virtual Reality

We assessed the contribution of binocular disparity and the pictorial cues of linear perspective, texture, and scene clutter to the perception of distance in consumer virtual reality. As additional cues are made available, distance perception is predicted to improve, as measured by a reduction in systematic bias, and an increase in precision. We assessed (1) whether space is nonlinearly distorted; (2) the degree of size constancy across changes in distance; and (3) the weighting of pictorial versus binocular cues in VR. In the first task, participants positioned two spheres so as to divide the egocentric distance to a reference stimulus (presented between 3 and 11 m) into three equal thirds. In the second and third tasks, participants set the size of a sphere, presented at the same distances and at eye-height, to match that of a hand-held football. Each task was performed in four environments varying in the available cues. We measured accuracy by identifying systematic biases in res...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Depth Perception
  • Computer Graphic
  • Binocular Disparity
  • Behavior Methods
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved