Reference Frame Effects on Shape Perception in Two versus Three Dimensions

Three experiments are reported in which it is tested whether the Gestalt effect of configural orientation on shape perception operates on two-dimensional (2-D) or three-dimensional (3-D) representations of space. It is known that gravitationally defined squares and diamonds take longer to discriminate in diagonal arrays than in horizontal or vertical arrays. In the first experiment it is shown that this interference effect decreases dramatically in magnitude when pictorial depth information is added so that subjects perceive the target shapes in different depth planes. In the second experiment this difference is shown not to be due to relative size of the target shapes or to occlusion of a background plane. It is also shown, in the final experiment, that this difference is not due to linear perspective information or merely to perception of the target figures in a 3-D scene. The overall pattern of results supports the position that this configural reference frame effect arises primarily when the elements of the configuration are coplanar, and that the principal organization underlying it is the structure of the perceived 3-D environment rather than that of the 2-D image. In all three experiments, however, there is also a small interference effect in the noncoplanar 3-D conditions. This might be due either to some aspect of reference frame selection operating on the 2-D image representation or to the failure of subjects to see depth in the 3-D stimuli on some proportion of the trials.

[1]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[2]  A. Ginsburg Psychological Correlates of a Model of the Human Visual System , 1971 .

[3]  W. Gogel The adjacency principle in visual percerption. , 1978, Scientific American.

[4]  I. Rock,et al.  A case of viewer-centered object perception , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  S. Palmer,et al.  Configural effects in perceived pointing of ambiguous triangles. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  R. L. Valois,et al.  The orientation and direction selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex , 1982, Vision Research.

[7]  S E Palmer,et al.  Textural effects in perceived pointing of ambiguous triangles. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  I. Rock,et al.  The effect on form perception of change of orientation in the third dimension. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Arthur P. Ginsburg,et al.  Spatial filtering and visual form perception. , 1986 .

[10]  S. Palmer What makes triangles point: Local and global effects in configurations of ambiguous triangles , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  S. Palmer The Psychology of Perceptual Organization: A Transformational Approach , 1983 .

[12]  G. Humphreys Reference frames and shape perception , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  S. Palmer The role of symmetry in shape perception. , 1985, Acta psychologica.