Distortions of distance and shape are not produced by a single continuous transformation of reach space

We investigated whether distortions of perceived distance and shape could be captured by a single continuous one-to-one transformation of the underlying space. In Experiment 1, the participants reached to touch points around the perimeter of spherical targets viewed at five different distances, to yield simultaneous measures of perceived distance and shape. Different participants reached while using dynamic monocular, static binocular, or dynamic binocular vision. Thin plate spline (TPS) analysis was applied so as to transform a Cartesian grid in such a way as to carry the original target points to the mean reach locations. In all cases, discontinuities appeared in the transformed grid from folding of the space. In Experiment 2, the participants reached to points that lay at the same locus in reach space, but on different portions of the visible target spheres (e.g., front vs. side). The participants reached to different locations when the points were different with respect to shape (e.g., front vs. side) but reached to the same locations when the points were the same with respect to shape (left vs. right side). TPS analysis revealed discontinuities from holes torn in the underlying space. The results show that perceived distance and perceived shape entail different distortions and cannot be captured by a single continuous transformation of reach space.

[1]  W. H. Ittelson,et al.  The size-distance invariance hypothesis. , 1953, Psychological review.

[2]  John C. Baird,et al.  Quantitative functions for size and distance judgments , 1967 .

[3]  C Caudek,et al.  Perceiving surface slant from deformation of optic flow. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  E. Johnston.  Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis , 1991, Vision Research.

[5]  D'arcy W. Thompson.  On growth and form i , 1943 .

[6]  J. Norman.  Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[7]  B Gillam,et al.  Size and position are incongruous: Measurements on the Müller-Lyer figure , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Reinhard Wilhelm,et al.  Shape Analysis , 2000, CC.

[9]  J T Todd,et al.  The visual perception of surface orientation from optical motion , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  K. Mardia,et al.  Statistical Shape Analysis , 1998 .

[11]  J J Koenderink,et al.  Affine structure from motion. , 1991, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[12]  G P Bingham,et al.  Distortions in definite distance and shape perception as measured by reaching without and with haptic feedback. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  J. Philbeck,et al.  Dissociation between location and shape in visual space. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  E. Goldstein.  Blackwell handbook of perception , 2001 .

[15]  Barbara Gillam,et al.  The Perception of Spatial Layout from Static Optical Information , 1995 .

[16]  J T Todd,et al.  The visual perception of smoothly curved surfaces from minimal apparent motion sequences , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  G P Bingham,et al.  Comparing measures of monocular distance perception: verbal and reaching errors are not correlated. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Christopher C. Pagano,et al.  Comparing measures of monocular distance perception: Verbal and reaching errors are not correlated. , 1998 .

[19]  J T Todd,et al.  The perceptual analysis of structure from motion for rotating objects undergoing affine stretching transformations , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  M Lind.  Perceiving motion and rigid structure from optic flow: A combined weak-perspective and polar-perspective approach , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  J. Todd,et al.  Systematic distortion of perceived three-dimensional structure from motion and binocular stereopsis. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  Ian P. Howard,et al.  Binocular Vision and Stereopsis , 1996 .

[23]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Facts on optic flow , 1987, Biological Cybernetics.

[24]  G P Bingham,et al.  Accommodation, occlusion, and disparity matching are used to guide reaching: a comparison of actual versus virtual environments. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  M. Lévesque.  Perception , 1986, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[26]  J T Todd,et al.  Distortions of Three-Dimensional Space in the Perceptual Analysis of Motion and Stereo , 1995, Perception.

[27]  O. Sabouraud.  [Space perception]. , 1978, Revue d'oto-neuro-ophtalmologie.

[28]  Rudolf K. Luneburg,et al.  Metric of binocular visual space , 1950 .

[29]  S. H. Ferris.  Motion parallax and absolute distance. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[30]  Tadasu Oyama,et al.  Visual Space Perception , 1962 .

[31]  José Antonio Aznar-Casanova,et al.  [On the metric of visual space]. , 2006, Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia.

[32]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Calibration of Distance and Size Does Not Calibrate Shape Information: Comparison of Dynamic Monocular and Static and Dynamic Binocular Vision , 2005 .

[33]  Claud L. Brown,et al.  Growth and Form , 1971 .

[34]  W. D. Wright.  Physiological Optics , 1958, Nature.

[35]  J T Todd,et al.  The perception of 3-dimensional affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  H. Gruber.  The relation of perceived size to perceived distance. , 1954, The American journal of psychology.

[37]  E. Brenner,et al.  The Distance Used for Scaling Disparities is the Same as the One Used for Scaling Retinal Size , 1997, Vision Research.

[38]  T Indow,et al.  A critical review of Luneburg's model with regard to global structure of visual space. , 1991, Psychological review.

[39]  A. S. Gilinsky.  Perceived size and distance in visual space. , 1951, Psychological review.