Three theories for reconciling the linearity of egocentric distance perception with distortion of shape on the ground plane.

Loomis, Jack M.

doi:10.3922/j.psns.2014.034

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(115 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The general result has been that the depth component of the obtained map is somewhat compressed relative to the frontal component; the observed compression varies from 15% to about 50% (Levin & Haber, 1993; Loomis et al., 1992; Toye, 1986; Wagner, 1985, 2006). Loomis (2014) reviews theories that attempt to account for the difference between these results and those for perceived distance from the observer.…”

Section: Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

J. J. Gibson’s “Ground Theory of Space Perception”

Sedgwick

2021

i-Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

J. J. Gibson's ground theory of space perception is contrasted with Descartes’ theory, which reduces all of space perception to the perception of distance and angular direction, relative to an abstract viewpoint. Instead, Gibson posits an embodied perceiver, grounded by gravity, in a stable layout of realistically textured, extended surfaces and more delimited objects supported by these surfaces. Gibson's concept of optical contact ties together this spatial layout, locating each surface relative to the others and specifying the position of each object by its location relative to its surface of support. His concept of surface texture—augmented by perspective structures such as the horizon—specifies the scale of objects and extents within this layout. And his concept of geographical slant provides surfaces with environment-centered orientations that remain stable as the perceiver moves around. Contact-specified locations on extended environmental surfaces may be the unattended primitives of the visual world, rather than egocentric or allocentric distances. The perception of such distances may best be understood using Gibson's concept of affordances. Distances may be perceived only as needed, bound through affordances to the particular actions that require them.

show abstract

Section: Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

J. J. Gibson’s “Ground Theory of Space Perception”

Sedgwick

2021

i-Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Koenderink [295] finds inconsistencies between global and local depth judgements. Loomis et al [296][297][298] find inconsistencies between absolute distance judgements and relative depth judgements. Koenderink et al [299] find conflicting judgements of fronto-parallels.…”

Section: Human Visionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Loomis et al . [ 296 – 298 ] find inconsistencies between absolute distance judgements and relative depth judgements. Koenderink et al .…”

Section: Human Visionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Approaches to 3D Vision

Linton

Morgan

Read

et al. 2022

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New approaches to 3D vision are enabling new advances in artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicles, a better understanding of how animals navigate the 3D world, and new insights into human perception in virtual and augmented reality. Whilst traditional approaches to 3D vision in computer vision (SLAM: simultaneous localization and mapping), animal navigation (cognitive maps), and human vision (optimal cue integration) start from the assumption that the aim of 3D vision is to provide an accurate 3D model of the world, the new approaches to 3D vision explored in this issue challenge this assumption. Instead, they investigate the possibility that computer vision, animal navigation, and human vision can rely on partial or distorted models or no model at all. This issue also highlights the implications for artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, human perception in virtual and augmented reality, and the treatment of visual disorders, all of which are explored by individual articles. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘New approaches to 3D vision’.

show abstract

“…However, it is difficult to orally report exactly how far the cup is from us. Whereas perceived egocentric distance is proportional to physical distance in both verbal estimation and nonverbal paradigms, verbal estimation is often accompanied with more underestimation (linear functions with slopes near 0.7–0.8) than nonverbal paradigms (slopes near 1.0) 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 . The intrasubject reliability is better in nonverbal paradigms than in verbal estimation paradigms 27 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The foggy effect of egocentric distance in a nonverbal paradigm

Dong

Chen

Zhang

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inaccurate egocentric distance and speed perception are two main explanations for the high accident rate associated with driving in foggy weather. The effect of foggy weather on speed has been well studied. However, its effect on egocentric distance perception is poorly understood. The paradigm for measuring perceived egocentric distance in previous studies was verbal estimation instead of a nonverbal paradigm. In the current research, a nonverbal paradigm, the visual matching task, was used. Our results from the nonverbal task revealed a robust foggy effect on egocentric distance. Observers overestimated the egocentric distance in foggy weather compared to in clear weather. The higher the concentration of fog, the more serious the overestimation. This effect of fog on egocentric distance was not limited to a certain distance range but was maintained in action space and vista space. Our findings confirm the foggy effect with a nonverbal paradigm and reveal that people may perceive egocentric distance more "accurately" in foggy weather than when it is measured with a verbal estimation task.

show abstract

Three theories for reconciling the linearity of egocentric distance perception with distortion of shape on the ground plane.

Cited by 9 publications

References 49 publications

J. J. Gibson’s “Ground Theory of Space Perception”

J. J. Gibson’s “Ground Theory of Space Perception”

New Approaches to 3D Vision

The foggy effect of egocentric distance in a nonverbal paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About