Perceptual Space in the Dark Affected by the Intrinsic Bias of the Visual System

Correct judgment of egocentric/absolute distance in the intermediate distance range requires both the angular declination below the horizon and ground-surface information being represented accurately. This requirement can be met in the light environment but not in the dark, where the ground surface is invisible and hence cannot be represented accurately. We previously showed that a target in the dark is judged at the intersection of the projection line from the eye to the target that defines the angular declination below the horizon and an implicit surface. The implicit surface can be approximated as a slant surface with its far end slanted toward the frontoparallel plane. We hypothesize that the implicit slant surface reflects the intrinsic bias of the visual system and helps to define the perceptual space. Accordingly, we conducted two experiments in the dark to further elucidate the characteristics of the implicit slant surface. In the first experiment we measured the egocentric location of a dimly lit target on, or above, the ground, using the blind-walking-gesturing paradigm. Our results reveal that the judged target locations could be fitted by a line (surface), which indicates an intrinsic bias with a geographical slant of about 12.4°. In the second experiment, with an exocentric/relative-distance task, we measured the judged ratio of aspect ratio of a fluorescent L-shaped target. Using trigonometric analysis, we found that the judged ratio of aspect ratio can be accounted for by assuming that the L-shaped target was perceived on an implicit slant surface with an average geographical slant of 14.4° That the data from the two experiments with different tasks can be fitted by implicit slant surfaces suggests that the intrinsic bias has a role in determining perceived space in the dark. The possible contribution of the intrinsic bias to representing the ground surface and its impact on space perception in the light environment are also discussed.

[1]  M. Braunstein.  Motion and texture as sources of slant information. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  L. Matin,et al.  Multimodal basis for egocentric spatial localization and orientation. , 1995, Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation.

[3]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  Vertical gaze angle: absolute height-in-scene information for the programming of prehension , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  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.

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

[6]  David C. Knill,et al.  Surface orientation from texture: ideal observers, generic observers and the information content of texture cues , 1998, Vision Research.

[7]  W. MASSAROt.  The perception of rotated shapes : A process analysis of shape constancy * , 1973 .

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

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

[10]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information , 2004, Nature.

[11]  D R Proffitt,et al.  Perception-Action Dissociations of a Walkable Müller-Lyer Configuration , 2000, Psychological science.

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

[13]  J. Rieser,et al.  Visual Perception and the Guidance of Locomotion without Vision to Previously Seen Targets , 1990, Perception.

[14]  W. Epstein,et al.  Perceived depth as a function of relative height under three background conditions. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  L. S. Mark,et al.  Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: a study of sitting and stair climbing. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Quantitative descriptors of the relationships between physical and perceived distances based on the ground surface representation mechanism , 2004 .

[17]  J. Thomson.  Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion? , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  P. Kaiser,et al.  Perceived shape and its dependency on perceived slant. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  J. Gibson.  The perception of visual surfaces. , 1950, The American journal of psychology.

[20]  J. Gibson,et al.  The perceived slant of visual surfaces-optical and geographical. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Asymmetry in 3-D perceptual organization: Ground-like surface superior to ceiling-like surface , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  R. B. Freeman.  Ecological optics and visual slant. , 1965, Psychological review.

[23]  D. Elliott.  Continuous visual information may be important after all: a failure to replicate Thomson (1983). , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[25]  J. Loomis,et al.  Visual space perception and visually directed action. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  J E Cutting,et al.  Comparing effects of the horizontal-vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: relative versus absolute, not perception versus action. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  L. Matin,et al.  Spatial summation among coextensive and parallel line segments across wide separations (50°): Egocentric localization and the Great Circle Model , 1994, Vision Research.

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

[29]  J. A. EASTERBROOK,et al.  Cybernetics and Management , 1960, Nature.

[30]  J. Gibson,et al.  The relation of apparent shape to apparent slant in the perception of objects. , 1955, Journal of experimental psychology.

[31]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Visually Perceived Eye Level and Horizontal Midline of the Body Trunk Influenced by Optic Flow , 2005, Perception.

[32]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Eye height scaling of absolute size in immersive and nonimmersive displays. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Geometric And Physiological Aspects Of Depth Perception , 1977, Optics & Photonics.

[34]  M M Cohen,et al.  Judgments of eye level in light and in darkness , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[36]  J. Philbeck,et al.  Is the anisotropy of perceived 3-D shape invariant across scale? , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  J. Philbeck,et al.  Dissociation between location and shape in visual space. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  J S Tittle,et al.  The visual perception of three-dimensional length. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  José Antonio Aznar-Casanova,et al.  [On the metric of visual space]. , 2006, Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia.

[40]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency , 1973 .

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

[42]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Judging Egocentric Distance on the Ground: Occlusion and Surface Integration , 2004, Perception.

[43]  J. Loomis,et al.  Reproduction of Object Shape is More Accurate without the Continued Availability of Visual Information , 1998, Perception.

[44]  R. Toye,et al.  The effect of viewing position on the perceived layout of space , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[45]  R. B. Freeman.  Effect of size on visual slant. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[47]  Depth information in single triangles and arrays of triangles , 1966 .

[48]  H R FLOCK,et al.  A POSSIBLE OPTICAL BASIS FOR MONOCULAR SLANT PERCEPTION. , 1964, Psychological review.

[49]  Harry Edwin Burton,et al.  The Optics of Euclid1 , 1945 .

[50]  H. Sedgwick.  Environment-Centered Representation of Spatial Layout: Available Visual Information from Texture and Perspective , 1983 .

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

[52]  H A Sedgwick,et al.  Distance perception across spatial discontinuities , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[53]  M. Braunstein,et al.  Judging Distance across Texture Discontinuities , 2003, Perception.

[54]  B. Julesz,et al.  Dynamic random-dot stereograms reveal up-down anisotropy and left-right isotropy between cortical hemifields , 1975, Science.

[55]  J M Loomis,et al.  Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[56]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Chapter 3 – Perceiving Layout and Knowing Distances: The Integration, Relative Potency, and Contextual Use of Different Information about Depth* , 1995 .

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