Ordinal configural cues combine with metric disparity in depth perception.

Prior research on the combination of depth cues generally assumes that different cues must be in the same units for meaningful combination to occur. We investigated whether the geometrically ordinal cues of familiarity and convexity influence depth perception when unambiguous metric information is provided by binocular disparity. We used bipartite, random dot stereograms with a central luminance edge shaped like a face in profile. Disparity specified that the edge and dots on one side were closer than the dots on the other side. Configural cues suggested that the familiar, face-shaped region was closer than the unfamiliar side. Configural cues caused an increase in perceived depth for a given disparity signal when they were consistent with disparity and a decrease in perceived depth when they were inconsistent. Thus, geometrically ordinal configural cues can quantitatively influence a metric depth cue. Implications for the combination of configural and depth cues are discussed.

[1]  James M. Hillis,et al.  Combining Sensory Information: Mandatory Fusion Within, but Not Between, Senses , 2002, Science.

[2]  Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi,et al.  Object memory effects on figure assignment: conscious object recognition is not necessary or sufficient , 2000, Vision Research.

[3]  B. Rogers,et al.  The stereoscopic anisotropy: individual differences and underlying mechanisms. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Scott B. Stevenson,et al.  Seeing In Depth, Vol. 1: Basic Mechanisms, , 2003 .

[5]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[6]  Mary A. Peterson,et al.  Memory and Learning in Figure-Ground Perception , 2003 .

[7]  Stephen Wallace,et al.  Figure and Ground , 1982 .

[8]  M. Landy,et al.  Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion , 1995, Vision Research.

[9]  I. Howard,et al.  Seeing in depth, Vol. 2: Depth perception. , 2002 .

[10]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Scale Convergence as a Principle for the Study of Perception , 1983 .

[11]  R. Kimchi,et al.  Perceptual organization in vision : behavioral and neural perspectives , 2003 .

[12]  David Mumford,et al.  Statistics of range images , 2000, Proceedings IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2000 (Cat. No.PR00662).

[13]  Felix Wichmann,et al.  The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Yacov Hel-Or,et al.  A new approach to qualitative stereo , 1994, Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.

[16]  G. Woodman,et al.  Lower region: a new cue for figure-ground assignment. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Separating figure from ground with a Boltzmann machine , 1990 .

[18]  James M. Hillis,et al.  Slant from texture and disparity cues: optimal cue combination. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[19]  D. Knill Ideal observer perturbation analysis reveals human strategies for inferring surface orientation from texture , 1998, Vision Research.

[20]  H. Pashler STEVENS' HANDBOOK OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY , 2002 .

[21]  Walter Gerbino,et al.  Convexity and Symmetry in Figure-Ground Organization , 1976 .

[22]  Mary Henle,et al.  Vision and artifact , 1977 .

[23]  James A. Crowell,et al.  Horizontal and vertical disparity, eye position, and stereoscopic slant perception , 1999, Vision Research.

[24]  B. Gibson,et al.  Shape Recognition Inputs To Figure-Ground Organization in Three-Dimensional Displays , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  B. Gibson,et al.  Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  B. Gibson,et al.  Must Figure-Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril , 1994 .

[27]  M. Peterson,et al.  Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground reversal: which route counts? , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  R. O’Reilly,et al.  Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: an interactive account. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.