Surface and volume judgments of three-dimensional shapes

Stanek, Richard J.

doi:10.3758/bf03331003

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This salience may be analogous to the salience of the longest linear dimension during visual perception of area and volume. It has been theorized that the visual percept of area and volume depends on the most salient dimension, which has been shown to be the elongation of objects ( Anastasi, 1936;Frayman & Dawson, 1981;Holmberg, 1975;Raghubir & Krishna, 1999;Stanek, 1968Stanek, , 1969Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2003). Along the same line, the most salient dimension of 3-D objects for the haptic volume task was probably the surface area, and that dimension therefore biased the judgment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Stanek (1968Stanek ( , 1969 found that this dimension also has an influence on visual surface area perception of 3-D objects. He showed that the surface area of a thin square plate was underestimated, as compared with the surface area of a cube.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Piaget, this happens because the child tends to focus on just one dimension of the cylinder-that is, the height-in order to make the volume judgment. Studies performed with adult participants have also suggested that visual volume perception depends on the longest linear dimension of objects (Frayman & Dawson, 1981;Holmberg, 1975;Lauer, 1929;Raghubir & Krishna, 1999;Stanek, 1968Stanek, , 1969Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2003). This phenomenon has been termed the elongation bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Haptic perception of volume and surface area of 3-D objects

Kahrimanovic

Tiest

Kappers

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Haptic perception of volume (Experiment 1) and surface area (Experiment 2) was studied with tetrahedrons, cubes, and spheres as stimuli (2-14 cm 3 ). The results of Experiment 1 showed that subjects perceived a tetrahedron to be larger in volume than either a cube or a sphere of the same physical volume and that they perceived a cube to be larger than a sphere. This pattern was independent of object size. The biases were smaller in conditions with mass information than in those without. The average biases in the different conditions ranged from 7% to 67%. Analyses revealed that the subjects apparently based their volume judgments on the surface area of objects. Experiment 2 showed that surface area itself could be perceived accurately, almost independently of the objects' shape. Experiment 3 investigated volume perception of objects in the absence of surface area (wire-frame objects) and showed larger biases than those observed with solid objects. With wire-frame objects, the maximal distance between two vertex points was probably the dimension on which the volume judgment was based. In conclusion, haptic volume perception of geometric objects has to be inferred from other object properties, but surface area can be perceived unbiased.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Haptic perception of volume and surface area of 3-D objects

Kahrimanovic

Tiest

Kappers

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few experiments reported in Brunswik (1956) and a recent study by Stanek (1968) appear to reflect the extent of published research having to do with surface or volume judgments of solids. Since certain results of research involving two-dimensional shapes are relevant to the present research a few of these studies will be briefly reviewed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

A parametric study of volume and surface judgments

Stanek

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…He did not give any information about the response variance. Stanek (1968Stanek ( , 1969 published two short papers on surface and volume judgments. He asked subjects to match the volume of prisms and cubes and found both underestimations and overestimations of prism volume, depending on the specific elongation and size of the prism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminating the volume of motion-defined solids

Veen

Kappers

Koenderink

et al. 1996

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the ability of human observers to discriminate an important global 3-D structural property, namely volume, of motion-defmed objects. Weused convex transparent wire-frame objects consisting of about 12planar triangular facets. Two objects, vertically separated by 7°, were shown simultaneously on a computer display. Both revolved at 67°/sec around a common vertical axis through their centers of mass. Observers watched the objects monocularly for an average ofthree full rotations before they responded. We measured volume discrimination as a function of absolute volume (3-48 crn''; 1 m viewing distance) and shape (cubes, rods, and slabs of different regularity). Wefound that (1) volume discrimination performance can be described by Weber's law, (2) Weber fractions depend strongly on the particular combination of shapes used (regular shapes, especially cubes, are easiest to compare, and similar shapes are easier to compare than different shapes), and (3) humans use a representation of volume that is more veridical and stable in the sense of repeatability than a strategy based on the average visible (2-D) area would yield.The volume of a solid object is one of its most fundamental structural features. It determines the space the object occupies and can give some indication of its mass. We use our visual sense continuously to make judgments of volume (and mass): Which piece of meat is larger? Do I have as much lemonade as she has? Can I lift this object? Will this pile of clothes fit into that suitcase? And so on. How do we go about making these judgments? It is highly probable that we use all sorts ofexperience and prior knowledge. This will not be very helpful, however, when we are dealing with unfamiliar objects. Observing the objects from different viewpoints will help us to gain a better 3-D impression. This paper reports on the human ability to discriminate the volumes ofvarious objects when these objects are rotating in front of the observer. The rotation lets the observer see all sides ofthe objects and make use ofstructurefrom-motion computations to determine the 3-D structure of the objects. We varied the size and shape of the objects and measured the veridicality and reproducibility of volume comparisons.There has been some previous research in this area, but it has mainly involved the use of stationary, real objects. Lauer (1929) asked subjects to compare spheres, cubes, prisms, spherical sectors, and spherical segments, and found that shape does affect estimates of volume (e.g., the volumes of cubes were overestimated relative to spheres). He also concluded that disparity of dimensions within an ob- ject was critical, because the volumes of elongated prisms were overestimated relative to cube-like prisms, and the volumes of flat spherical segments were underestimated relative to higher segments. Brunswik (1934Brunswik ( , 1956) mentioned an unpublished study by Stevenson on a similar theme. In this study prisms of various elongations were compared with cubes ofvarious sizes. Subjects were g...

show abstract

Surface and volume judgments of three-dimensional shapes

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

Haptic perception of volume and surface area of 3-D objects

Haptic perception of volume and surface area of 3-D objects

A parametric study of volume and surface judgments

Discriminating the volume of motion-defined solids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About