The Framing Effect with Rectangular and Trapezoidal Surfaces: Actual and Pictorial Surface Slant, Frame Orientation, and Viewing Condition

The perceived slant of a surface relative to the frontal plane can be reduced when the surface is viewed through a frame between the observer and the surface. Aspects of this framing effect were investigated in three experiments in which observers judged the orientations-in-depth of rectangular and trapezoidal surfaces which were matched for pictorial depth. In experiments 1 and 2, viewing was stationary-monocular. In experiment 1, a frontal rectangular frame was present or absent during viewing. The perceived slants of the surfaces were reduced in the presence of the frame; the reduction for the trapezoidal surface was greater, suggesting that conflict in stimulus information contributes to the phenomenon. In experiment 2, the rectangular frame was either frontal or slanted; in a third condition, a frame was trapezoidal and frontal. The conditions all elicited similar results, suggesting that the framing effect is not explained by pictorial perception of the display, or by assimilation of the surface orientation to the frame orientation. In experiment 3, viewing was moving-monocular to introduce motion parallax; the framing effect was reduced, being appreciable only for a trapezoidal surface. The results are related to other phenomena in which depth perception of points in space tends towards a frontal plane; this frontal-plane tendency is attributed to heavy experimental demands, mainly concerning impoverished, conflicting, and distracting information.

[1]  W. Hell,et al.  Movement parallax: An asymptotic function of amplitude and velocity of head motion , 1978, Vision Research.

[3]  B. Rogers,et al.  Simultaneous and Successive Contrast Effects in the Perception of Depth from Motion-Parallax and Stereoscopic Information , 1982, Perception.

[4]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Motion capture changes to induced motion at higher luminance contrasts, smaller eccentricities, and larger inducer sizes , 1993, Vision Research.

[5]  R. B. Freeman,et al.  Detectability of motion as a factor in depth perception by monocular movement parallax , 1977 .

[6]  Herbert F. Crovitz,et al.  Perceived length and the Craik-O'Brien illusion , 1976, Vision Research.

[7]  A H Reinhardt-Rutland,et al.  Perceiving Surface Orientation: Pictorial Information Based on Rectangularity Can Be Overriden during Observer Motion , 1993, Perception.

[8]  W. Gehringer,et al.  Effect of ecological viewing conditions on the Ames' distorted room illusion. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  H. A. Sedgwick,et al.  The effects of viewpoint on the virtual space of pictures , 1991 .

[10]  W EPSTEIN,et al.  Apparent Shape of a Meaningful Representational Form , 1962, Perceptual and Motor Skills.

[11]  E. Eriksson.  MONOCULAR SLANT PERCEPTION AND THE TEXTURE GRADIENT CONCEPT , 1964 .

[12]  A H Reinhardt-Rutland,et al.  Perceiving the Orientation in Depth of Real Surfaces: Background Pattern Affects Motion and Pictorial Information , 1995, Perception.

[13]  W. Clark,et al.  Retinal gradients of outline distortion and binocular disparity as stimuli for slant. , 1956, Canadian journal of psychology.

[14]  D W Eby,et al.  The Perceptual Flattening of Three-Dimensional Scenes Enclosed by a Frame , 1995, Perception.

[15]  A H Reinhardt-Rutland,et al.  Detecting orientation of a surface: the rectangularity postulate and primary depth cues. , 1990, The Journal of general psychology.

[16]  A. Reinhardt-Rutland,et al.  Verbal Judgments of a Surface's Orientation-In-Depth in Degrees of Angle: Equidistance Tendency, Motion Ineffectiveness, and Automaticity , 1995 .

[17]  W. Clark,et al.  The interaction of surface texture, outline gradient, and ground in the perception of slant. , 1956, Canadian journal of psychology.

[18]  A. Reinhardt-Rutland,et al.  Perceiving the orientation-in-depth of triangular surfaces: static-monocular, moving-monocular, and static-binocular viewing. , 1996, The Journal of general psychology.

[19]  Allen Brookes,et al.  Integrating stereopsis with monocular interpretations of planar surfaces , 1988, Vision Research.

[20]  W. Gogel,et al.  EQUIDISTANCE TENDENCY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  John M Foley,et al.  Effect of Distance Information and Range on Two Indices of Visually Perceived Distance , 1977, Perception.

[22]  W. Gogel,et al.  THE TENDENCY TO SEE OBJECTS AS EQUIDISTANT AND ITS INVERSE RELATION TO LATERAL SEPARATION , 1956 .

[23]  Stanley N. Roscoe,et al.  Bigness Is in the Eye of the Beholder , 1985, Human factors.

[24]  W C Gogel,et al.  The sensing of retinal size. , 1969, Vision research.

[25]  N J Wade,et al.  On Interocular Transfer of the Movement Aftereffect in Individuals with and without Normal Binocular Vision , 1976, Perception.