We propose a novel method to probe the depth structure of the pictorial space evoked by paintings. The method involves an exocentric pointing paradigm that allows one to find the slope of the geodesic connection between any pair of points in pictorial space. Since the locations of the points in the picture plane are known, this immediately yields the depth difference between the points. A set of depth differences between all pairs of points from an N-point (N > 2) configuration then yields the configuration in depth up to an arbitrary depth offset. Since an N-point configuration implies N(N-1) (ordered) pairs, the number of observations typically far exceeds the number of inferred depths. This yields a powerful check on the geometrical consistency of the results. We report that the remaining inconsistencies are fully accounted for by the spread encountered in repeated observations. This implies that the concept of ‘pictorial space’ indeed has an empirical significance. The method is analyzed and empirically verified in considerable detail. We report large quantitative interobserver differences, though the results of all observers agree modulo a certain affine transformation that describes the basic cue ambiguities. This is expected on the basis of a formal analysis of monocular optical structure. The method will prove useful in a variety of potential applications.
AndrewsD P, 1967“Perception of contour orientation in the central fovea part I: Short lines”Vision Research7975–997
2.
AppelleS, 1972“Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: The ‘oblique effect’ in man and animals”Psychological Bulletin78266–278 doi:10.1037/h0033117
BerkeleyG, 1709An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision (Dublin: Aaron Rhames)
5.
BianZAndersenG J, 2010“The advantage of a ground surface in the representation of visual scenes”Journal of Vision101–19 doi:10.1167/10.8.16
6.
BoumaHAndriessenJ J, 1968“Perceived orientation of isolated line segments”Vision Research8493–507 doi:10.1016/0042-6989(68)90091-6
7.
BoumaHAndriessenJ J, 1970“Induced changes in the perceived orientation of line segments”Vision Research10333–349 doi:10.1016/0042-6989(70)90104-5
8.
BrownJ W, 2002Self-Embodying Mind: Process, Brain Dynamics and the Conscious Present (Barrytown, NY: Barrytown/Station Hill Press)
9.
CuttingJ E, 1986“The shape and psychophysics of cinematic space”Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers18551–558 doi:10.3758/BF03201428
10.
CuttingJ E, 1987“Rigidity in cinema seen from the front row, side aisle”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance13323–334 doi:10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.323
11.
de la Gournerie, 1859Traité de perspective linéaire contenant les tracés pour les tableaux plans et courbes, les bas-reliefs et les décorations théatrales, avec une théorie des effets de perspective (Paris: Dalmont et Dunod/Mallet-Bachelier)
12.
DeregowskiJ BParkerD M, 1995“Viewing angle and the perceived orientation of pictorial elements: geometric or representational effects”Perception241139–1153 doi:10.1068/p241139
13.
DeregowskiJ BParkerD MMassironiM, 1994“The perception of spatial structure with oblique viewing: An explanation for byzantine perspective?”Perception235–13 doi:10.1068/p230005
14.
GoldsteinE B, 1979“Rotation of objects in pictures viewed at an angle”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance578–87 doi:10.1037/0096-1523.5.1.78
15.
GoldsteinE B, 1987“Spatial layout, orientation relative to the observer, and perceived projection in pictures viewed at an angle”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance13256–266 doi:10.1037/0096-1523.13.2.256
16.
GoldsteinE B, 1988“Geometry or not geometry? Perceived orientation and spatial layout in pictures viewed at an angle”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance14312–314 doi:10.1037/0096-1523.14.2.312
17.
GombrichE H, 1960Art and Illusion: A Study of the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (London: Phaidon Press)
18.
HagenM A, 1976“Influence of picture surface and station point on the ability to compensate for oblique view in pictorial perception”Developmental Psychology1257–63 doi:10.1037/0012-1649.12.1.57
19.
HalloranT O, 1993“The frame turns also: factors in differential rotation in pictures”Perception & Psychophysics54496–508 doi:10.3758/BF03211772
20.
HansenB CEssockE A, 2004“A horizontal bias in human visual processing of orientation and its correspondence to the structural components of natural scenes”Journal of Vision41044–1060 doi:10.1167/4.12.5
21.
HildebrandA, 1901Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst (Strassburg: Heitz & Mündel)
22.
JaglomI M, 1979A Simple non-Euclidian Geometry and its Physical Basis: An Elementary Account of Galilean Geometry and the Galilean Principle of Relativity (New York: Springer)
23.
KleinF, 1872Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neue geometrische Forschungen (The ‘Erlangen Program’) Programm zu Eintritt in die philosophische Fakultät und den Senat der Universität zu Erlangen (Deichert: Erlangen)
24.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA J, 1995“Relief: pictorial and otherwise”Image and Vision Computing13321–334 doi:10.1016/0262-8856(95)99719-H
25.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA J, 2003“Pictorial space”, in Looking into Pictures: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Pictorial Space (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 239–299
26.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA J, 2008“The structure of visual spaces”Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision31171–187 doi:10.1007/s10851-008-0076-3
27.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA JKappersA M L, 1992“Surface perception in pictures”Perception & Psychophysics52487–496 doi:10.3758/BF03206710
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA JLappinJ S, 2000“Direct measurement of curvature of visual space”Perception2969–79 doi:10.1068/p2921
32.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA JKappersA M LToddJ T, 2001“Ambiguity and the ‘mental eye’ in pictorial relief”Perception30431–448 doi:10.1068/p3030
33.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA JKappersA M L, 2004“Pointing out of the picture”Perception33513–530 doi:10.1068/p3454
34.
KoenderinkJvan DoornAToddJ, 2009“Wide distribution of external local sign in the normal population”Psychological Research7314–22 doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0145-7
35.
PerkinsD N, 1973“Compensating for distortion in viewing pictures obliquely”Perception & Psychophysics1413–18 doi:10.3758/BF03198608
36.
PirenneM H, 1970Optics, Painting and Photography (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press)
37.
SachsH, 1990Isotrope Geometrie des Raumes (Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg)
38.
SedgwickH A, 1991“The effects of viewpoint on the virtual space of pictures”, in Pictorial Communication in Virtual and Real Environments (London: Taylor & Francis) pp 460–479
39.
StrubeckerK, 1941“Differentialgeometrie des isotropen Raumes I”Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien1501–43
40.
TimneyB NMuirD W, 1976“Orientation anisotropy: incidence and magnitude in Caucasian and Chinese subjects”Science193699–701 doi:10.1126/science.948748
41.
van DoornA JKoenderinkJ JWagemansJ, forthcoming “Depth order in pictures”
42.
Van GoolLMoonsTPauwelsEWagemansJ, 1994“Invariance from the Euclidean geometer's perspective”Perception23547–561 doi:10.1068/p230547
43.
WijntjesM W APontS C, 2010“Pointing in pictorial space: quantifying the perceived relative depth structure in mono and stereo images of natural scenes”ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 7 unpaginated where α denotes the angular distance between the end points L and R. For α ≫ 1, an approximation that commonly holds in cases of pictorial perception, the curvature is simply 1, independent of α
