Depth Perception in Linear and Inverse Perspective Pictures

Perception ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R Topper ◽  
William A Simpson

The range of pictorial depth perception was tested with four pictures from the repertoire of European art, rather than the customary line drawings or photographs. These pictures included those rendered in linear perspective and inverse perspective, as well as those with different degrees of depth. Using Pandora’ Box, the subjects were asked to place a lamp at the same apparent depth as objects in the pictures. The subjects did so without regard to the depiction technique. The results suggest that depth is seen in pictures both where the rules of linear perspective hold and where they have been violated.

Perception ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques Chevrier ◽  
André Delorme

The aim of the experiment was to study the evolution with age (6, 8, 11 and 14 years) of pictorial depth perception in Pandora's box and to compare it with the evolution of size illusion with the same subjects and the same pictorial backgrounds. In addition to familiar size and relative position, each pictorial stimulus contained one or more of the following depth cues: linear perspective, texture gradient, and interposition. The two kinds of measurements produced different results. Size illusions, although present, did not vary with age but increased with the number of cues. Estimates of distance in Pandora's box increased with age and varied according to the type of cue present: texture gradient seemed to be critical to the amount of depth perceived. The correlation between size adjustments and distance adjustments was significant only for the two oldest groups of subjects (11 and 14 years).


1968 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 601-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip L. Kilbride ◽  
Michael C. Robbins

A positive and significant relationship between the amount of formal education and the use of the linear perspective cue to pictorial depth perception was found among 523 Ss living in Uganda.


1975 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry McGurk ◽  
Gustav Jahoda

1974 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 535-539
Author(s):  
Issa M. Oman ◽  
Walter H. MacGinitie

1991 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 11-14
Author(s):  
Leo Marai

Twenty male and five female undergraduates were assessed in a study designed to test for three dimensional pictorial perception in a Papua New Guinea sample. A version of Hudson's (1960) and Deregowski's (1968) test stimuli was used; the stimuli were slightly modified to make them culturally appropriate. The major result of the study was a finding of consistent sex differences in pictorial depth perception. Males tended to perceive three dimensionally while females tended to perceive two dimensionally.


Perception ◽  
10.1068/p5591 ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 1290-1304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balaraju Battu ◽  
Astrid M L Kappers ◽  
Jan J Koenderink

Pictorial space is the 3-D impression that one obtains when looking ‘into’ a 2-D picture. One is aware of 3-D ‘opaque’ objects. ‘Pictorial reliefs’ are the surfaces of such pictorial objects in ‘pictorial space’. Photographs (or any pictures) do in no way fully specify physical scenes. Rather, any photograph is compatible with an infinite number of possible scenes that may be called ‘metameric scenes’. If pictorial relief is one of these metameric scenes, the response may be considered ‘veridical’. The conventional usage is more restrictive and is indeed inconsistent. Thus the observer has much freedom in arriving at such a ‘veridical’ response. To address this ambiguity, we determined the pictorial reliefs for eight observers, six pictures, and two psychophysical methods. We used ‘methods of cross-sections’ to operationalise pictorial reliefs. We find that linear regression of the depths of relief at corresponding locations in the picture for different observers often lead to very low (even insignificant) R2s. Thus the responses are idiosyncratic to a large degree. Perhaps surprisingly, we also observed that multiple regression of depth and picture coordinates at corresponding locations often lead to very high R2s. Often R2s increased from insignificant up to almost 1. Apparently, to a large extent ‘depth’ is irrelevant as a psychophysical variable, in the sense that it does not uniquely account for the relation of the response to the pictorial structure. This clearly runs counter to the bulk of the literature on pictorial ‘depth perception’. The invariant core of interindividual perception proves to be of an ‘affine’ rather than a Euclidean nature; that is to say, ‘pictorial space’ is not simply the picture plane augmented with a depth dimension.


2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman D. Cook ◽  
Asami Yutsudo ◽  
Naoki Fujimoto ◽  
Mayu Murata

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document