Humans ignore motion and stereo cues in favor of a fictional stable world

Current Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 428-432

  Glennerster, Andrew ^a,b   Tcheang, Lili ^a,c   Gilson, Stuart J ^a   Fitzgibbon, Andrew W ^a,d   Parker, Andrew J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BINOCULAR VISION; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; VISUAL ILLUSION;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CUES; HUMANS; MOTION PERCEPTION; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPACE PERCEPTION; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VISION, BINOCULAR;

EID: 32944470986     PISSN: 09609822     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.01.019     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. O.D. Faugeras Three-Dimensional Computer Vision: A Geometric Viewpoint 1993 MIT Press Cambridge, USA
2. R. Hartley, and A. Zisserman Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision 2000 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
3. W.C. Gogel A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications Percept. Psychophys. 48 1990 105 123
4. M.F. Bradshaw, A.D. Parton, and A. Glennerster The task-dependent use of binocular disparity and motion parallax information Vision Res. 40 2000 3725 3734
5. H. von Helmholtz Physiological Optics Volume 3 1924 Dover New York
6. S.J. Judge, and C.M. Bradford Adaptation to telestereoscopic viewing measured by one-handed ball catching performance Perception 17 1988 783 802
7. E.B. Johnston Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis Vision Res. 31 1991 1351 1360
8. E. Brenner, and W.J.M. van Damme Perceived distance, shape and size Vision Res. 39 1999 975 986
9. J.J. Gibson The perception of the visual world 1950 Houghton Mifflin Boston
10. T. Ooi, B. Wu, and Z. He Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon Nature 414 2001 197 200
11. E. Brenner, and J.B.J. Smeets Comparing extra-retinal information about distance and direction Vision Res. 40 2000 1649 1651
12. M.O. Ernst, and M.S. Banks Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion Nature 415 2002 429 433
13. R.A. Jacobs What determines visual cue reliability? Trends Cogn. Sci. 6 2002 345 350
14. 2d3 Ltd. Boujou 2, 2003. http://www.2d3.com.
15. Fitzgibbon, A.W., and Zisserman, A. (1998). Automatic camera recovery for closed or open image sequences. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 311-326.
16. S.P. McKee, D.M. Levi, and S.F. Bowne The imprecision of stereopsis Vision Res. 30 1990 1763 1779
17. C.J. Erkelens, and H. Collewijn Motion perception during dichoptic viewing of moving random-dot stereograms Vision Res. 25 1985 583 588
18. A.H. Holway, and E.G. Boring Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant Am. J. Psychol. 54 1941 21 37
19. A.S. Gilinsky The effect of attitude upon the perception of size Am. J. Psychol. 68 1955 173 192
20. A. Ames The Ames Demonstrations in Perception 1952 Hafner Publishing New York
21. D. Knill, and W. Richards Perception as Bayesian Inference 1996 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
22. L. Tcheang, S.J. Gilson, and A. Glennerster Systematic distortions of perceptual stability investigated using immersive virtual reality Vision Res. 44 2005 2177 2189
23. E.B. Johnston, B.G. Cumming, and A.J. Parker Integration of depth modules: Stereo and texture Vision Res. 33 1993 813 882
24. D.J. Finney Probit Analysis 3rd edition 1971 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
25. J.M. Hillis, S.J. Watt, M.S. Landy, and M.S. Banks Slant from texture and disparity cues: optimal cue combination J. Vis. 4 2004 967 992