Infants' perception of directional alignment of texture elements on a spherical surface

Abstract

By appropriately compressing texture elements on a circular surface, one can evoke the impression of being confronted with the depiction of a spherical object in the picture plane. According to Todd and Akerstrom (1987), the 3D perception of such an object can be eliminated if the optical elements are not sufficiently elongated or if they are not aligned with one another. In the current investigation, 4-month-old infants were tested for their ability to react to a disruption of the directional alignment variable. They were habituated to either a spherical surface or a surface the spatial layout of which was destroyed by reorienting the texture elements, and were afterwards tested with a further ellipsoid object and with a further flat surface. Data analysis revealed that the female infants, but not the male participants, preferred the novel posthabituation display, that is, the test stimulus which included a change in the orientational alignment of texture elements. These findings are discussed within the context of development of sensitivity to pictorial depth cues. It is possible that infants as young as 4 months of age respond to manipulations of the directional alignment factor per se, while older infants are capable of using this factor as a cue for 3D object shape. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Key words: infant vision; perceptual development; pictorial depth cues; gradients of texture Gibson (1950) was the first to recognize the importance of texture gradients for the perception of spatial layout. Research has revealed four types of variation among texture elements that are potentially informative. These variations are: gradients of density, gradients of size, gradients of convergence (linear perspective) and gradients of compression (width/length). Texture gradients are potentially informative for determining both the distance of a planar surface from the point of observation and the orientation of a planar surface to the line of sight (e.g. Knill, 1998a, b). Stevens (1981Stevens ( , 1984 points to two geometrical

Three-month-olds’ sensitivity to orientation cues in the three-dimensional depth plane

“…As noted earlier, other studies have found that young infants are sensitive to information in pictorial displays that, to adults, create the impression of depth or 3-D structure Bhatt & Waters, 1998;Durand & Lécuyer, 2002;Durand et al, 2003;Imura et al, 2004;Kavnek, 2003b;Lécuyer & Durand, 1998). For example, Imura and colleagues (2004) used a paired-comparison procedure and popout stimuli and found that 4-month-olds were able to discriminate a vertical change in shading direction signaled by pictorial cues.…”

“…For example, Kavnek (2003b) familiarized 4-month-olds with computer animations of circular displays with texture elements that were arranged to evoke the impression of either a sphere or a Xat disc. Subsequently, he tested infants' ability to discriminate the spherical and Xat displays.…”

Sex Differences in Early Infancy

“…Finally, sex differences have been reported in several other domains, including habituation behaviors (Creighton, 1984;Tighe & Powlison, 1978), perception of pictorial cues (Kavšek, 2003(Kavšek, , 2004, categorization (Arterberry & Bornstein, 2002), imitation of propulsive motion (Benenson, Tennyson, & Wrangham, 2011), perception of number (Moore & Cocas, 2006;Strauss & Curtis, 1981), and components of linguistic processing (Friederici et al, 2008;Lany & Gomez, 2008;Shucard, Shucard, & Thomas, 1987). However, many of these results are difficult to interpret, have not been replicated, and/or have inconsistent outcomes across studies.…”

Infant Perception of Surface Texture and Relative Height as Distance Information: A Preferential‐Reaching Study

“…Several experiments employing habituation–dishabituation methods have supported the conclusion that there is an increase in sensitivity to pictorial depth cues with age (Arterberry et al., 1991; Imura et al., 2006; Kavšek, 1999, 2009; Oross et al., 1987). Other habituation–dishabituation studies, however, suggest that 3‐ to 4‐month‐old infants are capable of perceiving pictorial depth (Bertin & Bhatt, 2006; Bhatt & Bertin, 2001; Bhatt & Waters, 1998; Durand & Lécuyer, 2002; Durand, Lécuyer, & Frichtel, 2003; Imura, Tomonaga, Yamaguchi, & Yagi, 2004; Kavšek, 2003b; Putaansuu & von Hofsten, 1991; Shuwairi, 2009; Shuwairi, Albert, & Johnson, 2007; Yonas, Granrud, Le, & Forsyth, 2007). For example, in a study that explored the “pop‐out” effect, Bertin and Bhatt (2006) found that 3‐month‐olds are sensitive to line junction cues.…”

“…It is possible that these studies detected pictorial depth perception in young infants because they used more sensitive experimental methods and/or more compelling displays. For example, embedding pictorial cues to depth in a dynamic display (e.g., Kavšek, 2003b) or in a pop‐out pattern (e.g., Bertin & Bhatt, 2006) might generate a stronger depth effect and improve the likelihood that younger infants will respond to these cues.…”