The frame turns also: Factors in differential rotation in pictures

When pictures of simple shapes (square, diamond) were seen frontally and obliquely, (1) the shapes with a deeper extent into pictured space underwent morerotation (Goldstein, 1979), which is an apparent turning to keep an orientation toward an observer’s changing position; (2) there was little effect of whether the observer knew the picture surface’s orientation in real space, except that such knowledge could prevent multistability; and (3) depicted picture frames also rotated. In other experiments, figural and frame rotations were independent of each other, and rotation was shown for real frames. The rotation of depthless depictions suggests that at least two rotational factors exist, one that involves the object’s virtual depth and one that does not. The nature of this second factor is discussed. Frame rotation appeared to subtract from object rotation when the two were being compared; this could explain a paradox in picture perception: Depicted orientations often seem little changed over viewpoints, despite (apparent) rotations with respect to real-space coordinates.

[1]  E. Goldstein,et al.  Spatial layout, orientation relative to the observer, and perceived projection in pictures viewed at an angle. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Denis M. Parker,et al.  Three-space inference from two-space stimulation , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  T A Busey,et al.  Compensation is unnecessary for the perception of faces in slanted pictures , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Robert H. Thouless,et al.  Phenomenal Regression to the Real Object , 1931, Nature.

[5]  F. Attneave Multistability in perception. , 1971, Scientific American.

[6]  J E Cutting,et al.  Affine distortions of pictorial space: some predictions for Goldstein (1987) that La Gournerie (1859) might have made. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  Distortions of perceived visual out of pictures , 1987 .

[8]  David N. Perkins,et al.  Compensating for distortion in viewing pictures obliquely , 1973 .

[9]  C. W. Parkin,et al.  The Magnetism of the Moon , 1971 .

[10]  W C Gogel,et al.  A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  T O Halloran,et al.  Picture perception is array-specific: Viewing angle versus apparent orientation , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  R. Thouless Phenomenal Regression to the Real Object , 1933, Nature.

[13]  Goldstein Eb Geometry or not geometry? Perceived orientation and spatial layout in pictures viewed at an angle. , 1988 .

[14]  Michael Kubovy,et al.  The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art. , 1986 .

[15]  J E Cutting,et al.  Rigidity in cinema seen from the front row, side aisle. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  E. Goldstein,et al.  Rotation of objects in pictures viewed at an angle: evidence for different properties of two types of pictorial space. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  A. Higashiyama Anisotropic perception of visual angle: Implications for the horizontal-vertical illusion, overconstancy of size, and the moon illusion , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Richard R. Rosinski,et al.  Compensation for Viewing Point in the Perception of Pictured Space. , 1979 .

[19]  John M. Kennedy,et al.  Optics Painting and Photography , 1970 .