Matching perceived depth from disparity and from velocity: Modeling and psychophysics

Domini, Fulvio; Caudek, Corrado

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.003

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(65 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pervasive phenomenon, which we refer to here as superadditivity effect (the estimated depth from a combination of depth cues is greater than the depth estimates from the individual cues) has been previously observed in the context of a series of perceptual studies investigating a model of depth cue combination termed Intrinsic Constraint (IC) model (Di Luca et al, 2010; Domini & Caudek, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013; Domini et al, 2006; Domini et al, 2011; Kemp et al, 2018). The IC model can be adapted so to successfully predict these kinds of shifts in 3D shape estimation, by pooling the retinal depth cues through a combination rule that prioritizes maximizing sensitivity to depth information over accuracy (Domini & Vishwanath, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…IC is therefore sufficient to explain the phenomenon of superadditivity – depth estimates increase with the amount of depth information – found both in this study and in VR (Campagnoli & Domini, 2019). Moreover, it can do so without the necessity of further ad-hoc assumptions such as prior-to-flatness (Di Luca et al, 2010; Domini and Caudek, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013; Domini et al, 2006; Domini et al, 2011; Kemp et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explicit and implicit depth-cue integration: evidence of systematic biases with real objects

Campagnoli

Hung

Domini

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a previous series of experiments using virtual stimuli, we found evidence that 3D shape estimation agrees to a superadditivity rule of depth-cue combination. According to this rule, adding depth cues leads to greater perceived depth magnitudes and, in principle, to depth overestimation. The mechanism underlying the superadditivity effect can be fully accounted for by a normative theory of cue integration, through the adaptation of a model of cue integration termed the Intrinsic Constraint (IC) model. As for its nature, it remains unclear whether superadditivity is a byproduct of the artificial nature of virtual environments, causing explicit reasoning to infiltrate behavior and inflate the depth judgments when a scene is richer in depth cues, or the genuine output of the process of depth-cue integration. In the present study, we addressed this question by testing whether the IC model's prediction of superadditivity generalizes beyond VR environments to real world situations. We asked participants to judge the perceived 3D shape of cardboard prisms through a matching task. To assay the potential influence of explicit control over those perceptual estimates, we also asked participants to reach and hold the same objects with their fingertips and we analyzed the in-flight grip size during the reaching. Using physical objects ensured that all visual information was fully consistent with the stimuli's 3D structure without computer-generated artifacts. We designed a novel technique to carefully control binocular and monocular 3D cues independently from one another, allowing to add or remove depth information from the scene seamlessly. Even with real objects, participants exhibited a clear superadditivity effect in both explicit and implicit tasks. Furthermore, the magnitude of this effect was accurately predicted by the IC model. These results confirm that superadditivity is an inherent feature of depth estimation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit and implicit depth-cue integration: evidence of systematic biases with real objects

Campagnoli

Hung

Domini

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Observers completed a 2IFC task comparing depth magnitude from a motion parallax stimulus with the depth from a binocular disparity stimulus (e.g., Nawrot, 2003 ; MacKenzie et al, 2008 ; Domini and Caudek, 2009 , 2010 ). The experiment included six different conditions: two motion parallax with head-translating conditions at two viewing distances (36 and 72 cm), and four head-stationary conditions at three viewing distances (36, 54, and 72 cm).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The accuracy of the motion parallax depth magnitude estimates depends on how closely perceived depth from binocular disparity represents the binocular stimulus geometry (depth constancy). While there are examples of systematic distortions in perceived depth from binocular disparity (e.g., Johnston, 1991 ; Tittle et al, 1995 ; Todd and Norman, 2003 ), most failures of depth constancy are linked to a mis-estimate of viewing distance due to “reduced viewing conditions” (Wallach and Zuckerman, 1963 ; Cumming et al, 1991 ; Johnston et al, 1994 ; Durgin et al, 1995 ; Todd and Norman, 2003 ; Domini and Caudek, 2010 ). Therefore, the current study employs “full-cue” viewing conditions that optimize distance perception (Mon-Williams and Tresilian, 1999 ) and have lead to accurate depth perception (Philbeck and Loomis, 1997 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling depth from motion parallax with the motion/pursuit ratio

Nawrot¹,

Ratzlaff²,

Leonard³

et al. 2014

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perception of unambiguous scaled depth from motion parallax relies on both retinal image motion and an extra-retinal pursuit eye movement signal. The motion/pursuit ratio represents a dynamic geometric model linking these two proximal cues to the ratio of depth to viewing distance. An important step in understanding the visual mechanisms serving the perception of depth from motion parallax is to determine the relationship between these stimulus parameters and empirically determined perceived depth magnitude. Observers compared perceived depth magnitude of dynamic motion parallax stimuli to static binocular disparity comparison stimuli at three different viewing distances, in both head-moving and head-stationary conditions. A stereo-viewing system provided ocular separation for stereo stimuli and monocular viewing of parallax stimuli. For each motion parallax stimulus, a point of subjective equality (PSE) was estimated for the amount of binocular disparity that generates the equivalent magnitude of perceived depth from motion parallax. Similar to previous results, perceived depth from motion parallax had significant foreshortening. Head-moving conditions produced even greater foreshortening due to the differences in the compensatory eye movement signal. An empirical version of the motion/pursuit law, termed the empirical motion/pursuit ratio, which models perceived depth magnitude from these stimulus parameters, is proposed.

show abstract

“…The perceptual equivalence between distance from motion and distance from stereopsis is measured using a matching task that pits distance from motion against distance specified by binocular disparity and convergence (cf. Domini & Caudek, 2010; Nawrot, 2003a). The constellation of design features employed here is novel, and our findings suggest that vestibular cues to head velocity can be used to achieve rudimentary perception of distance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating distance during self-motion: A role for visual-vestibular interactions

Dokka

MacNeilage²,

DeAngelis

et al. 2011

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fundamental challenge for the visual system is to extract the 3D spatial structure of the environment. When an observer translates without moving the eyes, the retinal speed of a stationary object is related to its distance by a scale factor that depends on the velocity of the observer’s self-motion. Here, we aim to test whether the brain uses vestibular cues to self-motion to estimate distance to stationary surfaces in the environment. This relationship was systematically probed using a two-alternative forced-choice task in which distance perceived from monocular image motion during passive body translation was compared to distance perceived from binocular disparity while subjects were stationary. We show that perceived distance from motion depended on both observer velocity and retinal speed. For a given head speed, slower retinal speeds led to the perception of farther distances. Likewise, for a given retinal speed, slower head speeds led to the perception of nearer distances. However, these relationships were weak in some subjects and absent in others, and distance estimated from self-motion and retinal image motion was substantially compressed relative to distance estimated from binocular disparity. Overall, our findings suggest that the combination of retinal image motion and vestibular signals related to head velocity can provide a rudimentary capacity for distance estimation.

show abstract

Matching perceived depth from disparity and from velocity: Modeling and psychophysics

Cited by 18 publications

References 55 publications

Explicit and implicit depth-cue integration: evidence of systematic biases with real objects

Explicit and implicit depth-cue integration: evidence of systematic biases with real objects

Modeling depth from motion parallax with the motion/pursuit ratio

Estimating distance during self-motion: A role for visual-vestibular interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About