The Effect of Perspective Geometry on Judged Direction in Spatial Information Instruments

Abstract

As part of a study of spatial information transfer, eight subjects judged the directions of displayed targets relative to a fixed reference position in the center of each of 640 perspective images. The stimulus images subtended 18 deg of the observer's visual field, while the images were constructed with geometric fields of view ranging from 30 to 120 deg. Target elevation is consistently overestimated, especially in “telephoto” images. Azimuth error varies sinusoidally with the azimuth direction of the target, alternating between clockwise and counterclockwise errors from one direction quadrant to the next. The direction of this azimuth error gradually reverses in each quadrant as the perspective is varied between “telephoto” and “wide angle” views, so that clockwise azimuth error becomes counterclockwise error, and vice versa. The amplitude of the sinusoidal azimuth error is least in the images with a 60-deg field of view. We propose a geometrical model of an interpretive behavior associated with viewing perspective displays in which the sinusoidal pattern of azimuth errors is induced by the difference between the 3D stimulus and its 2D projection, and by the consequences of the geometric differences between the station point and the observer's actual eye position.

Effects of Display Frames of Reference on Spatial Judgments and Change Detection

“…Immersed condition participants judged distances more accurately than Tethered, because of the inherent distortion caused by 3-D perspective foreshortening (Banks & Wickens, 1997;McGreevy & Ellis, 1986). Immersed participants were able to use the 2-D inset map to accurately gauge distances rather than relying on the 3-D perspective view.…”

Angular subtense effects on perception of polar and parallel projections of cubes

“…In some cases, authors find that perception is essentially compatible with projective geometry and that the distortions predicted by the transformed virtual space are indeed perceived (Bengston, Stergios, Ward, & Jester, 1980;Busey, Brady, & Cutting, 1990;McGreevy & Ellis, 1986;Rosinski, Mulholland, Degelman, & Farber, 1980;Smith & Gruber, 1958). However, other evidence suggests that perception does not always conform to the geometry of polar projection (Buseyet al, 1990;Farber & Rosinski, 1978;Goldstein, 1987;Smith, 1958;Wallach & Marshall, 1986).…”

Multi-dimensionality of synthetic vision cockpit displays: Prevention of controlled- flight-into-terrain

“…Another advantage of 3-D displays relates to the concept of "pictorial realism" through the presentation of a view that is similar to what the pilot would expect to see if he or she was looking outside the cockpit window. The design advantages of integration and realism with 3-D displays, however, are limited by perceptual issues, such as line-of-sight ambiguity, foreshortening, and resolution loss (McGreevy & Ellis, 1986;Wickens, Todd, & Seidler, 1989;Wickens et al, 1994). Alexander and Wickens (2004) reported greater vertical position estimation error, higher mental workload ratings, and higher number of unexpected tower collisions (obstacles only visible out-the-window) with the 3-D exocentric display suggesting that the format would not be suitable as a stand-alone display for a synthetic vision display.…”