Do We See Scale?

Linton, Paul

doi:10.31234/osf.io/yf6t7

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 161 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, the fixation plane is experienced at a single fixed ‘phenomenal distance’, no matter what its physical distance is ([ 41 , pp. 134–6], [ 89 , 90 ]).…”

Section: Visual Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, this single fixed ‘phenomenal distance’ corresponds to all potential physical distances. There's an intuitive appeal to this account [ 89 ]. The fact that we see a movie screen at a single fixed phenomenal distance, and yet a movie can transition from a wide-panning shot to a close-up without being jarring, suggests that attributing different scales to a single fixed phenomenal distance is something that comes naturally for humans.…”

Section: Visual Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…But in published work ([ 41 , pp. 118–136], [ 11 , 12 , 89 , 90 ]), I argue that all distance cues function in this way, and that our experience of visual scale (the absolute size and distance of objects and scenes) is merely cognitive.…”

Section: Visual Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Minimal theory of 3D vision: new approach to visual scale and visual shape

Linton

2022

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Kepler and Descartes in the early-1600s, vision science has been committed to a triangulation model of stereo vision. But in the early-1800s, we realized that disparities are responsible for stereo vision. And we have spent the past 200 years trying to shoe-horn disparities back into the triangulation account. The first part of this article argues that this is a mistake, and that stereo vision is a solution to a different problem: the eradication of rivalry between the two retinal images, rather than the triangulation of objects in space. This leads to a ‘minimal theory of 3D vision’, where 3D vision is no longer tied to estimating the scale, shape, and direction of objects in the world. The second part of this article then asks whether the other aspects of 3D vision, which go beyond stereo vision, really operate at the same level of visual experience as stereo vision? I argue they do not. Whilst we want a theory of real-world 3D vision, the literature risks giving us a theory of picture perception instead. And I argue for a two-stage theory, where our purely internal ‘minimal’ 3D percept (from stereo vision) is linked to the world through cognition. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘New approaches to 3D vision’.

show abstract

“…Instead, the fixation plane is experienced at a single fixed ‘phenomenal distance’, no matter what its physical distance is ([ 41 , pp. 134–6], [ 89 , 90 ]).…”

Section: Visual Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Visual Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Minimal theory of 3D vision: new approach to visual scale and visual shape

Linton

2022

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

V1 as an egocentric cognitive map

Linton

2021

Neuroscience of Consciousness

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We typically distinguish between V1 as an egocentric perceptual map and the hippocampus as an allocentric cognitive map. In this article, we argue that V1 also functions as a post-perceptual egocentric cognitive map. We argue that three well-documented functions of V1, namely (i) the estimation of distance, (ii) the estimation of size, and (iii) multisensory integration, are better understood as post-perceptual cognitive inferences. This argument has two important implications. First, we argue that V1 must function as the neural correlates of the visual perception/cognition distinction and suggest how this can be accommodated by V1’s laminar structure. Second, we use this insight to propose a low-level account of visual consciousness in contrast to mid-level accounts (recurrent processing theory; integrated information theory) and higher-level accounts (higher-order thought; global workspace theory). Detection thresholds have been traditionally used to rule out such an approach, but we explain why it is a mistake to equate visibility (and therefore the presence/absence of visual experience) with detection thresholds.

show abstract

Do We See Scale?

Abstract: In my final post I consider whether all our visual cues to scale function at the level of cognition rather than vision, and the kind of theory that ‘vision without scale’ would imply.

Cited by 2 publications

References 161 publications

Minimal theory of 3D vision: new approach to visual scale and visual shape

Minimal theory of 3D vision: new approach to visual scale and visual shape

V1 as an egocentric cognitive map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About