Compensation is unnecessary for the perception of faces in slanted pictures

Busey, Thomas A.; Brady, Nuala; Cutting, James E.

doi:10.3758/bf03205006

Cited by 57 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The conclusions of Busey et al (1990) are only partially in agreement with what has been found here. They used pictures of faces, some of which had been slanted and then reprojected to remove valid surface information, and trapezoidal projections of frames which sometimes did not match the faces' projected slant.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Perhaps the departures from scene rigidity remain unnoticeably small (Cutting, 1987) because all parts of a depiction rotate together, even though some tum more than others (Goldstein, 1979). The warpage thus might be subthreshold or fall below some cognitive criterion for empirical relevance, as Busey, Brady, and Cutting (1990) suggest.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Knowing where the picture surface is, they make a mental allowance for the distortions that would be appropriate at their viewpoint of the moment. These compensation theories have been criticized severely on two counts: (1) their stated or implied reliance on an extra, picture-specific perceptual process of compensation and (2) evident failures of such compensation, most notably object rotation (Busey et al, 1990;Cutting, 1987Cutting, , 1988Halloran, 1989). The subtractive effect of frame rotation on object rotation is, in a sense, a compensation, though a limited one that does not contradict differential rotation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The frame turns also: Factors in differential rotation in pictures

Halloran¹

1993

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When pictures of simple shapes (square, diamond) were seen frontally and obliquely, (1) the shapes with a deeper extent into pictured space underwent more rotation (Goldstein, 1979), which is an apparent turning to keep an orientation toward an observer's changing position; (2) there was little effect of whether the observer knew the picture surface's orientation in real space, except that such knowledge could prevent multistability; and (3) depicted picture frames also rotated. In other experiments, figural and frame rotations were independent of each other, and rotation was shown for real frames. The rotation of depthless depictions suggests that at least two rotational factors exist, one that involves the object's virtual depth and one that does not. The nature of this second factor is discussed. Frame rotation appeared to subtract from object rotation when the two were being compared; this could explain a paradox in picture perception: Depicted orientations often seem little changed over viewpoints, despite (apparent) rotations with respect to real-space coordinates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The frame turns also: Factors in differential rotation in pictures

Halloran¹

1993

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Busey et al (1990) point out, we rarely experience veridical 2-D pictorial representations, since a 2-D image is undistorted only if viewed from a single viewpoint, orthogonal to the picture plane and at a specific distance from the picture. The present experiments do not enable us to decide between face-specific and more generalised compensatory abilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Geometric Distortions on Face-Recognition Performance

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of ‘configural’ processing for face recognition is now well established, but it remains unclear precisely what it entails. Through four experiments we attempted to clarify the nature of configural processing by investigating the effects of various affine transformations on the recognition of familiar faces. Experiment 1 showed that recognition was markedly impaired by inversion of faces, somewhat impaired by shearing or horizontally stretching them, but unaffected by vertical stretching of faces to twice their normal height. In experiment 2 we investigated vertical and horizontal stretching in more detail, and found no effects of either transformation. Two further experiments were performed to determine whether participants were recognising stretched faces by using configural information. Experiment 3 showed that nonglobal vertical stretching of faces (stretching either the top or the bottom half while leaving the remainder undistorted) impaired recognition, implying that configural information from the stretched part of the face was influencing the process of recognition — ie that configural processing involves global facial properties. In experiment 4 we examined the effects of Gaussian blurring on recognition of undistorted and vertically stretched faces. Faces remained recognisable even when they were both stretched and blurred, implying that participants were basing their judgments on configural information from these stimuli, rather than resorting to some strategy based on local featural details. The tolerance of spatial distortions in human face recognition suggests that the configural information used as a basis for face recognition is unlikely to involve information about the absolute position of facial features relative to each other, at least not in any simple way

show abstract

“…I simplified this problem significantly (see Kulvicki 2006;Busey et al 1990;Maynard 1996; Nanay 2011 for less simplified versions; see also Koenderink et al 2004, p. 526 for a dissenting view). There are cases where there is no such compensation: when we are looking at ceiling frescos from an oblique angle, for example, we do see the depicted scene as distorted.…”

Section: The Picture Surface (A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Threefoldness

Nánay

2017

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of picture perception aim to understand our perceptual relation to both the picture surface and the depicted object. I argue that we should talk about not two, but three entities when understanding picture perception: (A) the picture surface, (B) the three dimensional object the picture surface visually encodes and (C) the three dimensional depicted object. As (B) and (C) can come apart, we get a more complex picture of picture perception than normally assumed and one where the notion of twofoldness, which has played an important albeit controversial role in understanding picture perception is replaced by the concept of threefoldness.

show abstract

Compensation is unnecessary for the perception of faces in slanted pictures

Cited by 57 publications

References 35 publications

The frame turns also: Factors in differential rotation in pictures

The frame turns also: Factors in differential rotation in pictures

Effects of Geometric Distortions on Face-Recognition Performance

Threefoldness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About