Large continuous perspective transformations are necessary and sufficient for accurate perception of metric shape

We investigated the ability to perceive the metric shape of elliptical cylinders. A large number of previous studies have shown that small perspective variations (#10°) afforded by stereovision and by head movements fail to allow accurate perception of metric shape. If space perception is affine (Koenderink & van Doorn, 1991), observers are unable to compare or relate lengths in depth to frontoparallel lengths (i.e., widths). Frontoparallel lengths can be perceived correctly, whereas lengths in depth generally are not. We measured reaches to evaluate shape perception and investigated whether larger perspective variations would allow accurate perception of shape. In Experiment 1, we replicated previous results showing poor perception with small perspective variations. In Experiment 2, we found that a 90° continuous change in perspective, which swapped depth and width, allowed accurate perception of the depth/width aspect ratio. In Experiment 3, we found that discrete views differing by 90° were insufficient to allow accurate perception of metric shape and that perception of a continuous perspective change was required. In Experiment 4, we investigated continuous perspective changes of 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° and discovered that a 45° change or greater allowed accurate perception of the aspect ratio and that less than this did not. In conclusion, we found that perception of metric shape is possible with continuous perspective transformations somewhat larger than those investigated in the substantial number of previous studies.

[1]  E. Pedhazur Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction , 1982 .

[2]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Solid shape , 1990 .

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

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

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

[6]  J S Lappin,et al.  On the scaling of visual space from motion—in response to Pizlo and Salacfa-Golyska , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  E Börjesson,et al.  The effect of polar projection on the perception of euclidean structure from motion , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  J F Norman,et al.  The visual perception of rigid motion from constant flow fields , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  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.

[12]  J. Todd,et al.  The perception of surface curvature from optical motion , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[14]  E. Brenner,et al.  Perceived distance, shape and size , 1999, Vision Research.

[15]  R. A. Eagle,et al.  The role of perspective information in the recovery of 3D structure-from-motion , 1999, Vision Research.

[16]  M. Hogervorst,et al.  The role of perspective effects and accelerations in perceived three-dimensional structure-from-motion. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  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.

[18]  Simon J Watt,et al.  Binocular cues are important in controlling the grasp but not the reach in natural prehension movements , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[19]  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.

[20]  Mark F. Bradshaw,et al.  Reaching for virtual objects: binocular disparity and the control of prehension , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[22]  Simon J Watt,et al.  The visual control of reaching and grasping: binocular disparity and motion parallax. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Mark F Bradshaw,et al.  The role of binocular information in the 'on-line' control of prehension. , 2003, Spatial vision.

[24]  Mats Lind,et al.  Metric 3D Structure in Visualizations , 2003, Inf. Vis..

[25]  James A Crowell,et al.  Distortions of distance and shape are not produced by a single continuous transformation of reach space , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  Geoff P. Bingham,et al.  Differences between natural and unnatural prehension are not inevitable if calibration is allowed , 2004 .

[27]  Geoff P. Bingham,et al.  Reaching with feeling , 2004 .

[28]  Eli Brenner,et al.  On the relation between object shape and grasping kinematics. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[29]  Paul B Hibbard,et al.  Binocular cues and the control of prehension. , 2004, Spatial vision.

[30]  Simon Grant,et al.  Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[31]  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 .

[32]  P. B. Hibbard,et al.  Disparity-defined objects moving in depth do not elicit three-dimensional shape constancy , 2006, Vision Research.

[33]  Geoffrey P Bingham,et al.  Calibrating reach distance to visual targets. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  Mark Mon-Williams,et al.  Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[35]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Calibrating grasp size and reach distance: interactions reveal integral organization of reaching-to-grasp movements , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  Young-Lim Lee,et al.  Poor shape perception is the reason reaches-to-grasp are visually guided online , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Distinct perceptual representations for visually-guided reaches , 2010 .