Averaging and summation of influences on visually perceived eye level between two long lines differing in pitch or roll-tilt

Vision Research

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 307-329

  Matin, Leonard ^a   Li, Wenxun ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Disorientation; Perception of elevation; Space perception; Spatial localization; Spatial orientation; Visually perceived eye level

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPATIAL DISCRIMINATION; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; VISUAL ORIENTATION;

HUMANS; ORIENTATION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0032918752     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00059-5     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Asch S.E., Witkin H.A. Studies in space orientation. II. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields and with body tilted. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 38:1948;455-477.
2. Bischof N. Optic-vestibular orientation to the vertical. Kornhuber H.H. Chapter 2 of Vestibular System Part 2: Psychophysics, Applied Aspects and General Interpretations, Handbook of Sensory Physiology. I/2:1974;155-190 Springer-Verlag, New York.
3. Brandt Th., Dichgans J., Koenig E. Differential effects of central versus peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception. Experimental Brain Research. 16:1973;476-491.
4. Chelette, T., Li, W., Esken, R., & Matin, L. (1995). Visual perception of eye level (VPEL) under high g while viewing a pitched visual field. Annual Meeting Aerospace Medical Association, A55.
5. Cohen M.M. Visual-proprioceptive interactions. Walk R.D., Pick Jr H.L. Intersensory Perception and Sensory Interaction. 1981;Plenum Press, New York.
6. Cohen M.M., Ebenholtz S.M., Linder B.J. Effects of optical pitch on oculomotor control and the perception of target elevation. Perception and Psychophysics. 57:1995;433-440.
7. Dichgans J., Brandt Th. Visual-vestibular interaction and motion perception. Dichgans J., Bizzi E. Cerebral Control of Eye Movements and Motion Perception. 1972;S Karger, Basel.
8. Dichgans J., Held R.R., Young L.R., Brandt Th. Moving visual scenes influence the apparent direction of gravity. Science. 178:1972;1217-1219.
9. DiZio P., Li W., Lackner J.R., Matin L. Combined influences of gravitoinertial force level and visual field pitch on visually perceived eye level. Journal of Vestibular Research. 7:1997;381-392.
10. Ebenholtz S.M. Determinants of the rod and frame effect: the role of retinal size. Perception and Psychophysics. 22:1977;531-538.
11. Gibson J.J. Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of tilted lines: II. Simultaneous contrast and the areal restriction of the after-effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 20:1937;553-569.
12. Held R., Dichgans J., Bauer J. Characteristics of moving visual scenes influencing spatial orientation. Vision Research. 15:1975;357-365.
13. Howard I.P. Human Visual Orientation. 1982;John Wiley and Sons, New York.
14. Lackner J.R. Some mechanisms underlying sensory and postural stability in man. Held R., Leibowitz H.W., Teuber H. Perception, Handbook of Sensory Physiology. VIII:1978;805-846 Springer-Verlag, New York.
15. Leibowitz H.W., Post R.B., Brandt Th., Dichgans J. Implications of recent developments in dynamic spatial orientation and visual resolution for vehicle guidance. Wertheim A., Wagenaar W.A., Leibowitz H.W. Tutorials on Motion Perception. 1982;231-260 Plenum Press, New York.
16. Li W., Matin L. Perceived eye level: sensitivity to pitch of a vertical 2-line stimulus grows with eccentricity but is biased by elevation. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 31(4):1990;84.
17. Li W., Matin L. The influence of visual pitch on visually perceived eye level is spatiotopic. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 29(6):1991;488.
18. Li W., Matin L. Linear averaging of the influences from 2 lines of different pitch or obliquity on visually perceived eye level. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 33:1992;1154.
19. Li W., Matin L. Eye and head position, visual pitch and perceived eye level. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 34:1993;1311.
20. Li W., Matin L. Differences in influence between pitched-from-vertical and slanted-from-frontal horizontal lines on egocentric localization. Perception and Psychophysics. 57:1995;71-83.
21. Li W., Matin L. Visually perceived eye level is influenced identically by lines from erect and pitched planes. Perception. 25:1996;831-852.
22. Li, W., & Matin, L. (1996b). Spatial summation of influences on visually perceived eye level by pitched-from-vertical lines. 37th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, 43.
23. Li W., Matin L. Spatial summation of influences on visually perceived eye level by three differently-pitched lines. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 38:1997;1008.
24. Li, W., & Matin, L. (1998). Change in visually perceived eye level without change in perceived pitch. Perception 27, 553-572.
25. Matin L., Fox C.R. Visually perceived eye level and perceived elevation of objects: linearly additive influences from visual field pitch and from gravity. Vision Research. 29:1989;315-324.
26. Matin L., Li W. Visually perceived eye level: Changes induced by a pitched-from-vertical 2-line visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 18:1992;257-289.
27. Matin L., Li W. Mislocalizations of visual elevation and visual vertical induced by visual pitch: The Great Circle Model. Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 656:1992;242-265.
28. Matin L., Li W. The influence of the orientation of a stationary single line in darkness on the visual perception of eye level. Vision Research. 34:1994;311-330.
29. Matin L., Li W. Spatial summation among parallel lines across wide separation (50°): Spatial localization and the Great Circle Model. Vision Research. 34:1994;2577-2598.
30. Matin L., Li W. Mirror symmetry and parallelism: Two opposite rules for the identity transform in space perception and their unified treatment by the Great Circle Model. Spatial Vision. 8:1994;469-489.
31. Matin L., Li W. Multimodal basis for egocentric spatial localization and orientation. Journal of Vestibular Research. 5:1995;499-518.
32. Matin L., Li W. Light and dark adaptation of visually perceived eye level controlled by visual pitch. Perception and Psychophysics. 57:1995;84-104.
33. Matin L., Li W. PDP model for the influence of line orientation on visually perceived eye level. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 38(4):1997;1008.
34. Matin, L., & Li, W. (1997b). Summation and averaging of visual influences on VPEL modeled by postsynaptic conductance change in orientation-selective system. Abstract of Society for Neuroscience, 23, 175.
35. Matin L. Eye movements and perceived visual direction. Jameson D., Hurvich L. Handbook of Sensory Physiology. VII:1972;331-380 Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
36. Matin L. Visual localization and eye movements. Wertheim A., Wagenaar W.A., Leibowitz H. Tutorials on Motion Perception. 1983;101-156 Plenum Press, New York.
37. Matin L. Visual localization and eye movements. In K. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. Thomas, Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. I, New York: Wiley 20-1-20-45.
38. Mittelstaedt H. The subjective vertical as a function of visual and extraretinal cues. Acta Psychologica. 63:1986;63-85.
39. Mittelstaedt H. The information processing structure of the subjective vertical. A cybernetic bridge between its psychophysics and its neurobiology. Marko H., Hauske G., Struppler A. Processing Structures for Perception and Action. 1988;217-263 Verlag Chemie, Weinheim.
40. Nemire K., Cohen M.M. Visual and somesthetic imfluences on postural orientation in the median plane. Perception and Psychophysics. 53:1993;106-116.
41. Post R.B., Welch R.B. The role of retinal versus perceived size in the effects of pitched displays on visually perceived eye level. Perception. 25:1996;853-859.
42. Purcell T., Wenderoth P., Moore D. The angular function of orientation illusions induced by projected images of tilted real object scenes. Perception. 7:1978;229-238.
43. Robison E., Li W., Matin L. Manual matches to the elevation of visually mislocalized targets. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 36:1995;358.
44. Servos P., Matin L., Goodale M.A. Dissociation between two modes of spatial processing by a visual form agnosic. Neuroreport. 6:1995;1893-1896.
45. Sherrington C. Ferrier lecture. Some functional problems attaching to convergence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 105:1929;332-362.
46. Stoper A.E., Bautista A.B. The effect of pitched environment on apparent height: task dependence. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 29(6):1991;526.
47. Stoper A., Cohen M.M. Effect of structured visual environments on apparent eye level. Perception and Psychophysics. 46:1989;469-475.
48. Welch R.B., Post R.B. Accuracy and adaptation of reaching and pointing in pitched visual environments. Perception and Psychophysics. 58:1996;383-389.
49. Witkin H.A., Asch S.E. Studies in space perception: IV. Further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 38:1948;762-782.
50. Witkin H.A. Perception of body position and of the position of the visual field. Psychological Monographs. 63(7):1949;1-46.