Minimodularity and the perception of layout.

In natural vision, information overspecifies the relative distances between objects and their layout in three dimensions. Directed perception applies (Cutting, 1986), rather than direct or indirect perception, because any single source of information (or cue) might be adequate to reveal relative depth (or local depth order), but many are present and useful to observers. Such overspecification presents the theoretical problem of how perceivers use this multiplicity of information to arrive at a unitary appreciation of distance between objects in the environment. This article examines three models of directed perception: selection, in which only one source of information is used; addition, in which all sources are used in simple combination; and multiplication, in which interactions among sources can occur. To monocular spatial information, using all combinations of the presence or absence of relative size, height in the projection plane, occlusion, and motion parallax. Visual stimuli were computer generated and consisted of three untextured parallel planes arranged in depth. Three tasks were used: one of magnitude estimation of exocentric distance within a stimulus, one of dissimilarity judgment in how a pair of stimuli revealed depth, and one of choice judgment within a pair as to which one revealed depth best. Grouped and individual results of the one direct and two indirect scaling tasks suggest that perceivers use these sources of information in an additive fashion. That is, one source (or cue) is generally substitutable for another, and the more sources that are present, the more depth is revealed. This pattern of results suggests independent use of information by four separate, functional subsystems within the visual system, here called minimodules. Evidence for and advantages of minimodularity are discussed.

[1]  K. Koffka.  Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[2]  Alfred H. Holway,et al.  Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant , 1941 .

[3]  R. Hetherington.  The Perception of the Visual World , 1952 .

[4]  A. Ames,et al.  An interpretative manual for the demonstrations in the Psychology Research Center, Princeton University : the nature of our perceptions, prehensions and behavior , 1955 .

[5]  A. S. Gilinsky,et al.  The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. , 1955, The American journal of psychology.

[6]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Operationism and the concept of perception. , 1956, Psychological review.

[7]  G S HARKER.  Interrelation of monocular and binocular acuities in the making of an equidistance judgment. , 1958, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[8]  D JAMESON,et al.  Note on factors influencing the relation between stereoscopic acuity and observation distance. , 1959, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[9]  M. Orne.  On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. , 1962 .

[10]  David Klahr,et al.  A monte carlo investigation of the statistical significance of Kruskal's nonmetric scaling procedure , 1969 .

[11]  G. Sperling.  Binocular Vision: A Physical and a Neural Theory , 1970 .

[12]  N. Pastore.  Selective history of theories of visual perception: 1650-1950 , 1975 .

[13]  J. Pokorny.  Foundations of Cyclopean Perception , 1972 .

[14]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  The devil rides again: Correlation as an index of fit. , 1973 .

[15]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Chapter 2 – ATTENTION: THE PROCESSING OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION* , 1974 .

[16]  R. Shepard.  Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects , 1974 .

[17]  N. Anderson.  Chapter 8 – ALGEBRAIC MODELS IN PERCEPTION* , 1974 .

[18]  Lloyd Kaufman,et al.  Sight and mind , 1974 .

[19]  Parvati Dev,et al.  Perception of Depth Surfaces in Random-Dot Stereograms: A Neural Model , 1975, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[20]  D Marr,et al.  Cooperative computation of stereo disparity. , 1976, Science.

[21]  M H Birnbaum,et al.  Combining information from sources that vary in credibility , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[22]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[23]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Weak inference with linear models. , 1977 .

[24]  W. Epstein.  Stability and constancy in visual perception : mechanisms and processes , 1977 .

[25]  David M. Levine.  A monte carlo study of kruskal's variance based measure on stress , 1978 .

[26]  J. Farber,et al.  Optical motions as information for unsigned depth. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[28]  H. C. van der Meer.  Interrelation of the effects of binocular disparity and perspective cues on judgments of depth and height , 1979 .

[29]  R N Shepard,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling, Tree-Fitting, and Clustering , 1980, Science.

[30]  D Regan,et al.  How do we avoid confounding the direction we are looking and the direction we are moving? , 1982, Science.

[31]  D W Massaro,et al.  American Psychological Association, Inc. Evaluation and Integration of Visual and Auditory Information in Speech Perception , 2022 .

[32]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[33]  K. Nakayama.  Motion Parallax Sensitivity and Space Perception , 1983 .

[34]  Marc Jeannerod,et al.  How Do We Direct Our Actions in Space , 1983 .

[35]  J. Leeuw,et al.  Upper bounds for Kruskal's stress , 1984 .

[36]  J. Cutting,et al.  Three gradients and the perception of flat and curved surfaces. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  D. Dennett.  Carving the Mind at its Joints. , 1984 .

[38]  D. Ingle,et al.  Brain mechanisms and spatial vision , 1985 .

[39]  W. Epstein,et al.  The status of the minimum principle in the theoretical analysis of visual perception. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[40]  Albert Yonas,et al.  The Development of Sensitivity of Kenetic, Binocular and Pictorial Depth Information in Human Infants , 1985 .

[41]  J T Todd,et al.  Perception of structure from motion: is projective correspondence of moving elements a necessary condition? , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  N. Perrin,et al.  Varieties of perceptual independence. , 1986, Psychological review.

[43]  G. Sperling,et al.  Tradeoffs between stereopsis and proximity luminance covariance as determinants of perceived 3D structure , 1986, Vision Research.

[44]  H. Ono,et al.  Depth perception as a function of motion parallax and absolute-distance information. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  M. Braunstein,et al.  Recovering viewer-centered depth from disparity, occlusion, and velocity gradients , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[46]  J E Cutting,et al.  Perception and information. , 1987, Annual review of psychology.

[47]  W. Warren,et al.  Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  J. Todd,et al.  Perception of three-dimensional form from patterns of optical texture. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  S. Grossberg.  Cortical dynamics of three-dimensional form, color, and brightness perception: I. Monocular theory , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[50]  S Grossberg,et al.  Cortical dynamics of three-dimensional form, color, and brightness perception: II. Binocular theory , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[51]  A. Remole.  PERCEPTION WITH AN EYE FOR MOTION , 1987 .

[52]  Jean Vroomen,et al.  Speech-perception by ear and eye: a paradigm for psychological inquiry. Commentary/Massaro , 1989 .