Independent mechanisms produce visually perceived eye level (VPEL) and perceived visual pitch (PVP)

Vision Research

Volumn 40, Issue 19, 2000, Pages 2605-2619

  Hudson, Todd E ^a   Li, Wenxun ^a   Matin, Leonard ^a  

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

Author keywords

Perceived visual pitch; Visual environment; Visually perceived eye level

Indexed keywords

ADULT; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MONOCULAR VISION; NORMAL HUMAN; ORIENTATION; PERCEPTION; POSITION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA IMAGE; REVIEW; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 0033859861     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00114-0     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Allen M.J. Sex differences in spatial problem-solving styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 39(2):1974;843-846.
2. Brabyn L.B., McGuinness D. Gender differences in response to spatial frequency and stimulus orientation. Perception and Psychophysics. 26(4):1979;319-324.
3. Braunstein M.L. Motion and texture as sources of slant information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 78(2):1968;247-253.
4. 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.
5. Epstein W., Mountford D. Judgment of slant in response to an isolated gradient of stimulation. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 16:1963;733-737.
6. Flock, H. R. (1962). The monocular perception of surface slant. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University.
7. Flock H.R. A possible basis for monocular slant perception. Psychological Review. 71:1964;380-391.
8. Flock H.R. Three theoretical views of slant perception. Psychological Bulletin. 62(2):1964;110-121.
9. Flock H.R. Optical texture and linear perspective as stimuli for slant perception. Psychological Review. 72(6):1965;505-514.
10. Flock H.R., Moscatelli A. Variables of surface texture and accuracy of space perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 19:1964;327-334.
11. Freedman R.J., Rovegno L. Ocular dominance, cognitive strategy, and sex differences in spatial ability. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 52(2):1981;651-654.
12. Freeman, R. B. (1962). The effects of discrimination training on judgments of slant equality as a function of relative and absolute size. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
13. Freeman R.B. Ecological optics and visual slant. Psychological Review. 72(6):1965;501-504.
14. Freeman R.B. Absolute threshold for visual slant: the effect of stimulus size and retinal perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 71(2):1966;170-176.
15. Freeman R.B. Effect of size on visual slant. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 71(1):1966;96-103.
16. Geiringer E.R., Hyde J.S. Sex differences on Piaget's water-level task: spatial ability incognito. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 42(3/2):1976;1323-1328.
17. Gibson J.J. The perception of visual surfaces. American Journal of Psychology. 63:1950;367-384.
18. Gibson J.J. The ecological approach to visual perception. 1986;Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
19. Gillam B.J. Perception of slant when perspective and stereopsis conflict: experiments with aniseikonic lenses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 78(2):1968;299-305.
20. Gillam B.J., Lawergren B. The induced effect, vertical disparity, and stereoscopic theory. Perception and Psychophysics. 34:1983;121-130.
21. Gillam B.J., Rogers B.J. Orientation disparity, deformation and stereoscopic slant perception. Perception. 20:1991;441-448.
22. Gillam B.J., Chambers D., Russo T. Postfusional latency in stereoscopic slant perception and the primitives of stereopsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 14(2):1988;163-175.
23. Gruber H.E., Clark W.C. Perception of slanted surfaces. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 6:1956;97-106.
24. Hoppeler P. Über den stellungsfactor der schrictungen; eine experimentelle studie. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 66:1913;249-262.
25. Howard I.P., Kaneko H. Relative shear disparities and the perception of surface inclination. Vision Research. 34(19):1994;2505-2517.
26. Howard I.P., Rogers B.J. Binocular vision and stereopsis. 1995;Oxford University Press, New York.
27. Hudson, T. E., Li, W., & Matin, L. (1996). Independence of visually perceived eye level and perceived pitch. Abstracts of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, p. 42.
28. Hudson, T. E., Li, W., & Matin, L. (1998) A possible basis for pitch/roll discrimination utilizing the geometric normal. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Society.
29. Hudson T.E., Li W., Matin L. Binocular depth contrast: bilateral asymmetry across the median plane. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Supplement). 40(4):1999;803.
30. Hudson, T. E., Li, W., & Matin, L. Does a global mechanism control performance on spatial tasks? Perception and Psychophysics (under review).
31. Julesz B. Foundations of cyclopean perception. 1971;University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
32. Knill D.C. Ideal observer perturbation analysis reveals human strategies for inferring surface orientation from texture. Vision Research. 38:1998;2635-2656.
33. Li, W., & Matin, L. (1993). Eye and head position, visual pitch, and perceived eye level. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34 (4), s1311.
34. Li W., Matin L. Visually perceived eye level is influenced identically by lines from erect and pitched planes. Perception. 25:1996;831-852.
35. Li W., Matin L. Change in visually perceived eye level without change in perceived pitch. Perception. 27:1998;553-572.
36. Li, W. & Matin, L. (1999). Two dimensional manual mapping of visual space: changes induced by a pitched-from-vertical line. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 40 (4), s413.
37. MacDougall R. The subjective horizon. Psychological Monograph (Supplement). 4:1903;145-166.
38. Matin L., Fox C.F. Perceived eye level and perceived elevation of objects: linearly additive influences from visual field pitch and from gravity. Vision Research. 29:1989;315-324.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Matin L., Li W. Mirror symmetry and parallelism: two opposite rules for the identity transform in space perception and their unified treatment in the Great Circle Model. Spatial Vision. 8(4):1994;469-489.
42. 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.
43. Matin L., Li W. Spatial summation among coextensive and parallel line segments across wide separations (50°): egocentric localization and the Great Circle Model. Vision Research. 34(19):1994;2577-2598.
44. Matin L., Li W. Multimodal basis for egocentric spatial localization and orientation. Journal of Vestibular Research. 5(6):1995;499-518.
45. Matin L., Li W. Averaging and summation of influences on visually perceived eye level between two long lines differing in pitch or roll-tilt. Vision Research. 39(2):1999;307-329.
46. Matin L., Li W. Linear combinations of signals from lines of different orientations. Vision Research. 40(5):2000;517-527.
47. Matin L., Li W., Hudson T.E. Monocular discrimination between a pitched-from-vertical and roll-tilted line from the same nodal plane. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Supplement). 40(4):1999;43.
48. Ogle K.N. Researches in binocular vision. 1950;Hafner Publishing Co, New York.
49. Perrone J.A. Slant underestimation: a model based on the size of the viewing aperture. Perception. 9:1980;285-302.
50. Perrone J.A. Visual slant underestimation: a general model. Perception. 11:1982;641-654.
51. Perrone J.A., Wenderoth P. Visual slant underestimation. Ellis S.R., Kaiser M.K. Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments. 1991;Taylor & Francis, London.
52. Post, R., Welch, R., & Clark, V. Why do pitched horizontal lines have such a small effect on visually perceived eye level. Perception and Psychophysics (in press).
53. Rebelsky F. Adult perception of the horizontal. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 19(2):1964;371-374.
54. Robison E., Li W., Matin L. Manual matches to the elevation of visually mislocalized targets. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Supplement). 36:1995;358.
55. Sedgwick, H. A. (1983). Environment-centered representation of spatial layout: available information from texture and perspective. In A. Rosenthal, & J. Beck, Human and machine vision. New York: Acedemic Press.
56. Sedgwick H.A. Space perception. Boff K., Kaufman L. Handbook of perception and human performance. 1986;21-1-21-57 Wiley, New York.
57. Servos P., Matin L., Goodale M.A. Dissociation between two modes of spatial processing by a visual form agnostic. NeuroReport. 6:1995;1893-1896.
58. Sharp W.L. An experimental study concerning visual localization in the horizontal plane. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 17:1934;787-797.
59. Sherman J. Problem of sex differences in space perception and aspects of intellectual functioning. Psychological Review. 74:1969;290-299.
60. Smith A.H. Gradients of outline convergence and distortion as stimuli for slant. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 10(4):1956;211-218.
61. Stavrianos, B. K. (1945). The relation of shape perception to explicit judgments of inclination. Archive of Psychology, 296.
62. Stoper A.E., Cohen M.M. Effect of structured visual environments on apparent eye level. Perception and Psychophysics. 46:1989;469-475.
63. Stoper A.E., Cohen M.M. Optical, gravitational and kinesthetic determinants of judged eye level. Ellis S.R., Kaiser M.K. Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments. 1991;Taylor & Francis, London.
64. van Ee R., Erkelens C.J. Temporal aspects of binocular slant perception. Vision Research. 36(1):1996;43-51.
65. van Ee R., Erkelens C.J. Temporal aspects of stereoscopic slant perception: an evaluation and extension of Howard and Kaneko's theory. Vision Research. 38:1998;3871-3882.
66. Willemsen E., Reynolds B. Sex differences in adults' judgments of the horizontal. Developmental Psychology. 8:1973;309.
67. Witkin H.A., Lewis H.B., Hertzman M., Machover K., Meissner P.B., Wapner S. Personality through perception. 1954;Harper & Brothers, New York.