A statistical explanation of visual space

The subjective visual space perceived by humans does not reflect a simple transformation of objective physical space; rather, perceived space has an idiosyncratic relationship with the real world. To date, there is no consensus about either the genesis of perceived visual space or the implications of its peculiar characteristics for visually guided behavior. Here we used laser range scanning to measure the actual distances from the image plane of all unoccluded points in a series of natural scenes. We then asked whether the differences between real and apparent distances could be explained by the statistical relationship of scene geometry and the observer. We were able to predict perceived distances in a variety of circumstances from the probability distribution of physical distances. This finding lends support to the idea that the characteristics of human visual space are determined probabilistically.

[1]  L CHARNWOOD,et al.  Mathematical analysis of binocular vision. , 1948, The Optician.

[2]  Paul M. Laporte,et al.  Mathematical Analysis of Binocular Vision , 1950 .

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

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

[5]  William Epstein,et al.  Size and distance judgments under reduced conditions of viewing , 1969 .

[6]  Herschel W. Leibowitz,et al.  Oculomotor adjustments in darkness and the specific distance tendency , 1976 .

[7]  O. Sabouraud.  [Space perception]. , 1978, Revue d'oto-neuro-ophtalmologie.

[8]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance , 1979, Vision Research.

[9]  Hans Wallach,et al.  Slope of regard as a distance cue , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  T. Whiteside,et al.  Binocular Cues in the Perception of Distance of a Point Source of Light , 1984, Perception.

[11]  J M Foley,et al.  Binocular distance perception: egocentric distance tasks. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[13]  T Indow,et al.  A critical review of Luneburg's model with regard to global structure of visual space. , 1991, Psychological review.

[14]  Barbara Gillam,et al.  The Perception of Spatial Layout from Static Optical Information , 1995 .

[15]  David J. Field,et al.  Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images , 1996, Nature.

[16]  J. Philbeck,et al.  Visual Perception of Location and Distance , 1996 .

[17]  J. Philbeck,et al.  Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  D H Brainard,et al.  Bayesian color constancy. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[19]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Terrain influences the accurate judgement of distance , 1998, Nature.

[20]  A. Hurlbert,et al.  Perception of three-dimensional shape influences colour perception through mutual illumination , 1999, Nature.

[21]  Daniel Kersten,et al.  High-level Vision as Statistical Inference , 1999 .

[22]  Lawrence K. Cormack,et al.  Visual Space Perception: A Primer , 1999 .

[23]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  The new cognitive neurosciences , 2000 .

[24]  J L Gallant,et al.  Sparse coding and decorrelation in primary visual cortex during natural vision. , 2000, Science.

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

[26]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  On the Affine Structure of Perceptual Space , 2001, Psychological science.

[27]  C. Gilbert,et al.  On a common circle: natural scenes and Gestalt rules. , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  H A Sedgwick,et al.  Distance perception mediated through nested contact relations among surfaces , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  D. Mumford,et al.  Stochastic models for generic images , 2001 .

[30]  Jeffrey S. Perry,et al.  Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance , 2001, Vision Research.

[31]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon , 2001, Nature.

[32]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Natural image statistics and neural representation. , 2001, Annual review of neuroscience.

[33]  D. Kersten,et al.  Illusions, perception and Bayes , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[34]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  Motion illusions as optimal percepts , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[35]  Dale Purves,et al.  Range image statistics can explain the anomalous perception of length , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  D. Purves,et al.  Why we see what we do : an empirical theory of vision , 2003 .

[37]  David Mumford,et al.  Occlusion Models for Natural Images: A Statistical Study of a Scale-Invariant Dead Leaves Model , 2004, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[38]  Peter N. Belhumeur,et al.  A Bayesian approach to binocular steropsis , 1996, International Journal of Computer Vision.