The shading cue is supposed to be a major factor in monocular stereopsis. However, the hypothesis is hardly corroborated by available data. For instance, the conventional stimulus used in perception research, which involves a circular disk with monotonic luminance gradient on a uniform surround, is theoretically ‘explained’ by any quadric surface, including spherical caps or cups (the conventional response categories), cylindrical ruts or ridges, and saddle surfaces. Whereas cylindrical ruts or ridges are reported when the outline is changed from circular to square, saddle surfaces are never reported. We introduce a method that allows us to differentiate between such possible responses. We report observations on a number of variations of the conventional stimulus, including variations of shape and quality of the boundary, and contexts that allow the observer to infer illumination direction. We find strong and expected influences of outline shape, but, perhaps surprisingly, we fail to find any influence of context, and only partial influence of outline quality. Moreover, we report appreciable differences within the generic population. We trace some of the idiosyncrasies (as compared to shape from shading algorithms) of the human observer to generic properties of the environment, in particular the fact that many objects are limited in size and elliptically convex over most of their boundaries.
References
1.
AdamsW J, 2007“A common light-prior for visual search, shape, and reflectance judgments”Journal of Vision71–7
2.
AdamsW J, 2008“Frames of reference for the light-from-above prior in visual search and shape judgements”Cognition107137–150 doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.08.006
3.
AdamsW JGrafE WErnstM O, 2004“Experience can change the ‘light-from-above’ prior”Nature Neuroscience71057–1058 doi:10.1038/nn1312
BaxandallM, 1972Painting and experience in fifteenth century Italy: a primer on the social history of pictorial style (New York: Oxford University Press)
6.
BouguerP, 1729L'Essai d'optique (Paris: C Jombert)
7.
BrewsterD, 1832Letters on natural magic (London: John Murray)
8.
CateA DBehrmannM, 2010“Perceiving parts and shapes from concave surfaces”Attention Perception & Psychophysics72153–167 doi:10.3758/72.1.153
9.
ForsythD AZissermanA, 1991“Reflections on shading”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence13671–679 doi:10.1109/34.85657
10.
ForsythD APonceJ, 2002Computer vision: A modern approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall)
11.
FreemanW T, 1994“The generic viewpoint assumption in a framework for visual perception”Nature368542–545 doi:10.1038/368542a0
12.
GaußC F, 1827“Disquisitiones generales circa superficies curvas”Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingesis Recentiores699–146
13.
HayakawaHNishidaSWadaYKawatoM, 1994“A computational model for shape estimation by integration of shading and edge information”Neural Networks71193–1209 doi:10.1016/0893-6080(94)90002-7
14.
HershbergerW A, 1970“Attached-shadow orientation perceived as depth by chicken reared in an environment illuminated from below”Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology73407–411 doi:10.1037/h0030223
15.
HessE H, 1950“Development of the chick's responses to light and shade cues of depth”Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology43112–122 doi:10.1037/h0059235
16.
HilbertD, 1901“Über Flächen von constanter Gaussscher Krümmung”Transactions of the American Mathematical Society287–99
17.
HillHBruceV, 1994“A comparison between the hollow-face and ‘hollow-potato’ illusions”Perception231335–1337 doi:10.1068/p231335
18.
HornB K PBrooksM J, 1989“Shape from shading” (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
19.
HumphreyG KSymonsL AHerbertA MGoodaleM A, 1996“A neurological dissociation between shape from shading and shape from edges”Behavioural Brain Research76117–125 doi:10.1016/0166-4328(95)00190-5
20.
KleffnerD ARamachandranV S, 1992“On the perception of shape from shading”Perception & Psychophysics5218–36
21.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA J, 1983“Geometrical modes as a general method to treat diffuse interreflections in radiometry”Journal of the Optical Society of America73843–850 doi:10.1364/JOSA.73.000843
PalmerS E, 1999Vision science: Photons to phenomenology (Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press)
34.
RamachandranV S, 1988a“Perceiving shape from shading”Scientific American25976–83 doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0888-76
35.
RamachandranV S, 1988b“Perception of shape from shading”Nature331163–166 doi:10.1038/331163a0
36.
RiedlR, 1984Biology of knowledge: The evolutionary basis of reason (Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons)
37.
RittenhouseD, 1786“Explanation of an optical deception”Transactions of the American Philosophical Society237–42 doi:10.2307/1005164
38.
RogersL R, 1969Sculpture. The appreciation of the arts/2 (London: Oxford University Press)
39.
SüffertF, 1932“Phänomene visueller Anpassung”Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Ökologie der Tiere26147–316 doi:10.1007/BF00446393
40.
SunJPeronaP, 1998“Where is the sun?”Nature Neuroscience1183–184 doi:10.1038/630
41.
ThayerG H, 1909Concealing coloration in the animal kingdom: An exposition on the laws of disguise through color and pattern (New York: The Macmillan Co.)
42.
TurhanM, 1935“Über räumliche Wirkungen von Helligkeitsgefällen”Psychologische Forschung211–49
43.
van DiggelenJ, 1951“A photometric investigation of the slopes and heights of the ranges of hills in the maria of the moon”Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands11283–289
44.
ZhangRTsaiP SCreyerJ EShahM, 1999“Shape from shading: a survey”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence21690–706 doi:10.1109/34.784284
