Relative Height on the Picture-Plane and Depth Perception

Dunn, Bruce E.; Gray, Gary C.; Thompson, Douglas

doi:10.2466/pms.1965.21.1.227

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Had the results been such that the higher the stimulus array was with respect to the S's eye, the greater distance the higher stimulus appeared, the results would have been consistent with the basic geometry of the every-day visual f'reld in which stimuli over the head of the S reverse their information with respect to height in the visual field. That is, for high stimuli, the further-away stimulus looks lower, while for the low stimuli, the further-away stimulus hooks higher (see Dunn et al, 1965). The results of this study appear to indicate that the effect is greater when the S is flxated straight ahead at a point that might be viewed as the equivalent of the horizon point in a tiDed field of view.…”

Section: Pipes On Horizontal Planesupporting

confidence: 55%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relative distance of lights: An extension of Bugelski’s findings

Dunn

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roelofs and Zeeman (1957) showed that a stimulus presented to the nasal part of the eye was seen as closer to the S than the stimuli presented to the temporal part of the eye. Dunn, Gray, and Thompson (1965) showed that the height of an object in the visual field was a critical variable in its perceived distance relative to another object in the field. This result is also recorded by Roelofs and Zeeman (1957) and by Epstein (1966). The most usual fmding has been that the higher of two stimuli is seen as farther away. In none of these cases has there been control for position of the S's eye in the field. Dunn (1967) attempted to vary the direction of regard, but was unable to find any differences. However, he used transparencies that varied in their orientation to the 8 as a function of the direction from which the 8 looked at them. The findings in all cases supported the earlier studies. The higher end of the transparency was perceived as the farther end. Bugelski (1967) obtained results that differed from the above studies. He used two lights, separated by 2 deg, in an otherwise dark field. The 8 adjusted the lights to make them appear equal in distance. All but two Ss adjusted the lights so that the higher of the two lights was placed closer. Under another condition, two stimuli were presented to the Ss on the same horizontal, also separated by 2 deg. There was no significant statistical difference between the mean placements of the two lights. Bugelski postulated that the vertical effect would probably not occur with separations of much over 2 deg.The disparity between the above fmdings raises several interesting questions. First, did the free movement of the S's head allowed by Bugelski enter into the results? Second, was the direction of regard with respect to the stimulus display a factor? Third, was the small visual angle a factor, as suggested by Bugelski? Fourth, was the fact that binocular vision was used by the Ss a significant factor? The following study attempts to answer the questions raised above. The S's head was fixed with a chin-rest in order to avoid head movement. He fixated upon a center fixation light to direct his direction of regard. Vision was monocular and the angle between the stimuli was much larger than that used by Bugelski. The apparatus was so constructed that direction of regard could be varied while maintaining rigid relationships between important aspects of the stimulus array. METHOD SubjectsThe Ss were two sophisticated male and female undergraduate psychology majors. Their training consisted of several months of making judgments in various relative depth situations, not associated with the apparatus used in the following experiment. Both Ss had considerable experience in maintaining fixation upon a flxation light. Neither S was familiar with Bugelski's findings. ApparatusThe S viewed the stimuli through a l-cm pupil from a distance of 1 em. His chin rested on a chin-rest that held his head motionless. Three I~-in. pipes, painted on the inside with low-reflectant black paint...

show abstract

Section: Pipes On Horizontal Planesupporting

confidence: 55%

“…Dunn, Gray, and Thompson (1965) showed that the height of an object in the visual field was a critical variable in its perceived distance relative to another object in the field. This result is also recorded by Roelofs and Zeeman (1957) and by Epstein (1966).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative distance of lights: An extension of Bugelski’s findings

Dunn

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Certainly the data does not strongly suggest that the muscle involvement of looking up will reverse the RMH effect. Dunn, Grey, & Thompson (1965) have discussed possible responses of an S to stimuli above him, but on a plane extending below his eye level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the rectangle is viewed from above, the midpoint of the shorter end will be higher in the picture plane than the midpoint of the longer end. If viewed from the bottom, the opposite is true (Dunn, Grey, & Thompson, 1965). This relative difference in midpoint height was calledRMHbyDunn & Thomas (1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived slant as a function of direction of regard

Dunn

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Height in the visualfield measures relations among the bases of objects in a 3-D environment as projected to the eye, moving from the bottom of the visual field (or image) to the top, and assuming the presence of a ground plane, of gravity, and the absence ofa ceiling (see Dunn, Gray, & Thompson, 1965). Across the scope of many different traditions in art, a pattern is clear: If one source of information about layout is present in a picture beyond occlusion, that source is almost always height in the visual field.…”

Section: Nine Sources Of Information and Their Relative Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

How the eye measures reality and virtual reality

Cutting

1997

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

158

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ifvirtual reality systems are to make good on their name, designers must know how people perceive space in natural environments, in photographs, and in cinema. Perceivers understand the layout of a cluttered natural environment through the use of nine or more sources of information, each based on different assumptions--occlusion, height in the visual field, relative size, relative density, aerial perspective, binocular disparities, accommodation, convergence, and motion perspective. The relative utility of these sources at different distances is compared, using their ordinal depth-threshold functions. From these, three classes of space around a moving observer are postulated: personal space, action space, and vista space. Within each, a smaller number of sources act in consort, with different relative strengths. Given the general ordinality of the sources, these spaces are likely to be affine in character, stretching and collapsing with viewing conditions. One of these conditions is controlled by lens length in photography and cinematography or by field-of-view commands in computer graphics. These have striking effects on many of these sources of information and, consequently, on how the layout of a scene is perceived.

show abstract

Relative Height on the Picture-Plane and Depth Perception

Cited by 20 publications

References 8 publications

Relative distance of lights: An extension of Bugelski’s findings

Relative distance of lights: An extension of Bugelski’s findings

Perceived slant as a function of direction of regard

How the eye measures reality and virtual reality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About