2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.01.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of field of view on the perception of 3D slant from texture

Abstract: Observers judged the apparent signs and magnitudes of surface slant from monocular textured images of convex or concave dihedral angles with varying fields of view between 5 degrees C and 60 degrees C. The results revealed that increasing the field of view or the regularity of the surface texture produced large increases in the magnitude of the perceptual gain (i.e., the judged slant divided by the ground truth). Additional regression analyses also revealed that observers slant judgments were highly correlated… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

12
65
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(64 reference statements)
12
65
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The observers' judgments of slant in Experiment 1 (see Figure 3) were generally accurate: Our observers did not exhibit the underestimation that has been obtained in many previous studies (see, e.g., Andersen et al, 1998;Rosas et al, 2004;Saunders, 2003;Todd et al, 2005). Given that our surfaces were physically slanted in depth (instead of being simulated computationally and then displayed on a frontoparallel monitor or projection screen), it is possible that other monocular factors, such as accommodative blur (Ciuffreda, Wang, & Vasudevan, 2007;Frisby, Buckley, & Horsman, 1995;Watt, Akeley, Ernst, & Banks, 2005), contributed to the accurate performance of our observers in Experiment 1.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 75%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The observers' judgments of slant in Experiment 1 (see Figure 3) were generally accurate: Our observers did not exhibit the underestimation that has been obtained in many previous studies (see, e.g., Andersen et al, 1998;Rosas et al, 2004;Saunders, 2003;Todd et al, 2005). Given that our surfaces were physically slanted in depth (instead of being simulated computationally and then displayed on a frontoparallel monitor or projection screen), it is possible that other monocular factors, such as accommodative blur (Ciuffreda, Wang, & Vasudevan, 2007;Frisby, Buckley, & Horsman, 1995;Watt, Akeley, Ernst, & Banks, 2005), contributed to the accurate performance of our observers in Experiment 1.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Past research on the perception of slant, conducted mostly with computer-generated texture patterns, has typically shown underestimation (e.g., Andersen et al, 1998;Gibson, 1950b;Newman et al, 1973;Rosas et al, 2004;Saunders, 2003;Todd et al, 2005). The observers in our Experiment 2 also exhibited underestimation when they judged the surface slants by using magnitude estimation (see Figure 8).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 46%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Another limitation examined by Todd and colleagues (Todd, Thaler, & Dijkstra, 2005;Todd, Thaler, Dijkstra, Koenderink, & Kappers, 2007) is that the equations relating surface slant to variations in texture density are expressed in units of visual angle. Accordingly, Fig.…”
Section: Textured Imagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• The mirror plane is mapped with a texture, which is a simple structured pattern, to improve the perception of mirror's orientation relative to the virtual scene [23].…”
Section: Technique and Designmentioning
confidence: 99%