When observers are asked to match the depth of an object according to its height, they often report systematic errors depending on viewing distance. Systematic biases can also arise while vergence distances are induced by binocular disparities. Observers of stereoscopic images tend to overestimate the depth of objects displayed in front of the screen, while the depth of objects displayed behind the screen plane is underestimated. This phenomenon creates a serious problem in that veridicality in depth perception appears distorted when one attempts to render the metrics of a captured 3-D world. These distortions could also subsist with structure-from-motion information and during motion-in-depth. Observers judged the circularity of transparent rotating cylinders that were either static or moving in depth. Crossed results show that participants could precisely retrieve the best modulation between presented depth and width. As this effect could be amplified with stimuli containing stronger perspective cues (ie contour perspective), participants judged the rigidity of spinning cubes, moving along the line of sight, which were either edges-defined or defined by randomly textured surfaces (dots). The results showed that, although depth constancy was not improved by contour perspective, perceived rigidity was increased by perspective when the best scaling estimate was displayed. This finding suggests that appropriate binocular disparity information in combination to monocular signal is necessary for stereoscopic depth perception.
BinghamG. P.LindM. (2008). Large continuous perspective transformations are necessary and sufficient for accurate perception of metric shape. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 524–540.
2.
BradshawM. F.GlennersterA.RogersB. J. (1996). The effect of display size on disparity scaling from differential perspective and vergence cues. Vision Research, 36, 1255–1264.
3.
BradshawM. F.PartonA. D.GlennersterA. (2000). The task-dependent use of binocular disparity and motion parallax information. Vision Research, 40, 3725–3734.
4.
BrennerE.LandyM. S. (1999). Interaction between the perceived shape of two objects. Vision Research, 39, 3834–3848.
5.
BuckleyD.FrisbyJ. P. (1993). Interaction of stereo, texture and outline cues in the shape perception of three-dimensional ridges. Vision Research, 33, 919–933.
6.
ChampionR. A.BrennerE.MamassianP.SimmonsD. R. (2004). No evidence for sequential effects of the interaction of stereo and motion cues in judgments of perceived shape. Vision Research, 44, 483–487.
7.
CuttingJ. E.VishtonP.M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In EpsteinW.RogersS. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition, Vol. 5, Perception of space and motion (2nd ed., pp. 69–117). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8.
ErkelensC. J.ReganD. (1986). Human ocular vergence movements induced by changing size and disparity. The Journal of Physiology, 379, 145–169.
9.
FlockH. R. (1965). Optical texture and linear perspective as stimuli for slant perception. Psychological Review, 72, 505–514.
10.
FreemanR. B. (1966). Effect of size on visual slant. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 170–176.
11.
GillamB. J. (1968). Perception of slant when perspective and stereopsis conflict: Experiments with aniseikonic lenses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 299–305.
12.
GlennersterA.TcheangL.GilsonS. J.FitzgibbonA. W.ParkerA. J. (2006). Humans ignore motion and stereo cues in favor of a fictional stable world. Current Biology, 16, 428–432.
13.
GonzálezE. G.AllisonR. S.OnoH.VinnikovM. (2010). Cue conflict between disparity change and looming in the perception of motion in depth. Vision Research, 50, 136–143.
14.
HoffmanD. M.GirshickA. R.AkeleyK.BanksM. S. (2008). Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision, 8(3):33, 1–30.
15.
HowardI. P. (2002). Depth perception. In YantisS.PashlerH. (Eds.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 77–120). New York: John Wiley.
16.
JanssonG. (1977). Perceived bending and stretching motions from a line of points. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 209–215.
17.
JanssonG.JohanssonG. (1973). Visual perception of bending motion. Perception, 2, 321–326.
18.
JanssonG.RunesonS. (1977). Perceived bending motions from a quadrangle changing form. Perception, 6, 595.
19.
JohnstonE. B. (1991). Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis. Vision Research, 31, 1351–1360.
20.
JohnstonE. B.CummingB. G.LandyM. S. (1994). Integration of stereopsis and motion shape cues. Vision Research, 34, 2259–2275.
21.
JohnstonE. B.CummingB. G.ParkerA. J. (1993). Integration of depth modules: Stereopsis and texture. Vision Research, 33, 813–826.
22.
JuleszB. (1971). Foundations of cyclopean perception. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
MontagneG.FraisseF.RipollH.LaurentM. (2000). Perception-action coupling in an interceptive task: First-order time-to-contact as an input variable. Human Movement Science, 19, 59–72.
24.
NormanJ. F.ToddJ. T.PerottiV. J.TittleJ. S. (1996). The visual perception of three-dimensional length. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 173–186.
25.
O'LearyA.WallachH. (1980). Familiar size and linear perspective as distance cues in stereoscopic depth constancy. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 27, 131–135.
26.
OlsonR. K. (1974). Slant judgments from static and rotating trapezoids correspond to rules of perspective geometry. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 15, 509–516.
27.
ReganD.BeverleyK. I. (1978). Looming detectors in the human visual pathway. Vision Research, 18, 415–421.
28.
RichardsW. (1985). Structure from stereo and motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2, 343–349.
29.
RobertH. C.ArgerR. (1968). Necker cube perspective dominance as a function of retinal disparity. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 26, 367–370.
30.
RogersB. J.CollettT. S. (1989). The appearance of surfaces specified by motion parallax and binocular disparity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 697–717.
31.
SaundersJ. A.BackusB. T. (2006). The accuracy and reliability of perceived depth from linear perspective as a function of image size. Journal of Vision, 6(9):3, 882–897.
32.
ScarfeP.HibbardP. B. (2006). Disparity-defined objects moving in depth do not elicit three-dimensional shape constancy. Vision Research, 46, 1599–1610.
33.
StevensK. A.BrookesA. (1988). Integrating stereopsis with monocular interpretations of planar surfaces. Vision Research, 28, 371–386.
34.
TittleJ. S.BraunsteinM. L. (1993). Recovery of 3-D shape from binocular disparity and structure from motion. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 54, 157–169.
35.
TittleJ. S.ToddJ. T.PerottiV. J.NormanJ. F. (1995). Systematic distortion of perceived three-dimensional structure from motion and binocular stereopsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 663–678.
36.
ToddJ. T. (1982). Visual information about rigid and nonrigid motion: A geometric analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 238–252.
37.
van DammeW.BrennerE. (1997). The distance used for scaling disparities is the same as the one used for scaling retinal size. Vision Research, 37, 757–764.
38.
van EeR.van DamL. C.ErkelensC. J. (2002). Bi-stability in perceived slant when binocular disparity and monocular perspective specify different slants. Journal of Vision, 2(9): 597–607.
39.
von FieandtK.GibsonJ. J. (1959). The sensitivity of the eye to two kinds of continuous transformation of a shadow-pattern. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 344–347.
40.
WannJ. P.Mon-WilliamsM.McIntoshR. D.SmythM.MilnerD. A. (2001). The role of size and binocular information in guiding reaching: Insights from virtual reality and visual form agnosia III (of III). Experimental Brain Research, 139, 143–150.
41.
WattS. J.AkeleyK.ErnstM. O.BanksM. S. (2005). Focus cues affect perceived depth. Journal of Vision, 5(10):7, 834–862.
42.
WexlerM.PaneraiF.LamouretI.DroulezJ. (2001). Self-motion and the perception of stationary objects. Nature, 409(6816), 85–88.
43.
YangT.KubovyM. (1999). Weakening the robustness of perspective: Evidence for a modified theory of compensation in picture perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 61, 456–467.
44.
ZalevskiA. M.HenningG. B.HillN. J. (2007). Cue combination and the effect of horizontal disparity and perspective on stereoacuity. Spatial Vision, 20, 107–138.
