Abstract
The present experiment was designed to examine the roles of painted linear perspective cues, and the convexity bias that are known to influence human observers’ perception of three-dimensional (3D) objects and scenes. Reverse-perspective stimuli were used to elicit a depth-inversion illusion, in which far points on the stimulus appear to be closer than near points and vice versa, with a 2 (Type of stimulus) × 2 (Fixation mark position) design. To study perspective, two types of stimuli were used: a version with painted linear perspective cues and a version with blank (unpainted) surfaces. To examine the role of convexity, two locations were used for the fixation mark: either in a locally convex or a locally concave part of each stimulus (painted and unpainted versions). Results indicated that the reverse-perspective illusion was stronger when the stimulus contained strong perspective cues and when observers fixated a locally concave region within the scene.
Highlights
The causes of depth-inversion illusion (DII) are not fully understood, but evidence suggests that linear perspective and texture gradients (Dobias & Papathomas, 2014; Papathomas, 2002; Rogers & Gyani, 2010; Wade & Hughes, 1999), face-specific familiarity (Gregory, 1970, 1997; Hill & Bruce, 1993; Hill & Johnston, 2007), and the bias for convexity (Hill & Bruce, 1994; Langer & Bulthoff, 2001; Ramachandran, 1995; Sherman et al, 2011) play a role in DII
We examine the roles of linear perspective and convexity in the reverseperspective illusion using a 2 (Type of stimulus) Â 2 (Fixation mark position) design
The strength of the illusion was weaker when linear perspective and texture cues were reduced for the plain white reverseperspective stimulus
Summary
The causes of DII are not fully understood, but evidence suggests that linear perspective and texture gradients (Dobias & Papathomas, 2014; Papathomas, 2002; Rogers & Gyani, 2010; Wade & Hughes, 1999), face-specific familiarity (Gregory, 1970, 1997; Hill & Bruce, 1993; Hill & Johnston, 2007), and the bias for convexity (Hill & Bruce, 1994; Langer & Bulthoff, 2001; Ramachandran, 1995; Sherman et al, 2011) play a role in DII In this brief report, we examine the roles of linear perspective and convexity in the reverseperspective illusion using a 2 (Type of stimulus) Â 2 (Fixation mark position) design. In the former case, a convexity bias would tend to invert the depth of the concave part, encouraging the DII, whereas in the latter case, a convexity bias would tend to obtain a veridical convex surface, reducing the DII strength
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
