Large continuous perspective transformations are necessary and sufficient for accurate perception of metric shape

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 524-540

  Bingham, Geoffrey P ^a   Lind, Mats ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; MALE; SIZE PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 45549083431     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PP.70.3.524     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. BINGHAM, G. P. (2005). Calibration of distance and size does not calibrate shape information: Comparison of dynamic monocular and static and dynamic binocular vision. Ecological Psychology, 17, 55-74.
2. BINGHAM, G. P., BRADLEY, A., BAILEY, M., & VINNER, R. (2001). Accommodation, occlusion and disparity matching are used to guide reaching: A comparison of actual versus virtual environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 1314-1344.
3. BINGHAM, G. P., COATS, R., & MON- WILLIAMS, M. (2007). Unnatural prehension to virtual objects is not inevitable if calibration is allowed. Neuropsychologia, 45, 288-294.
4. BINGHAM, G. P., CROWELL, J. A., & TODD, J. T. (2004). Distortions of distance and shape are not produced by a single continuous transformation of reach space. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 152-169.
5. BINGHAM, G. P., ZAAL, F., ROBIN, D., & SHULL, J. A. (2000). Distortions in definite distance and shape perception as measured by reaching without and with haptic feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1436-1460.
6. BLAIR, N., WICKELGREN, E., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2001, June). How representative is parallel projection of structure-from-motion? Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Perception and Action, Storrs, CT.
7. BÖRJESSON, E., & LIND, M. (1996). The effect of polar projection on the perception of euclidean structure from motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 871-882.
8. BRADSHAW, M. F., & ELLIOT, K. M. (2003). The role of binocular information in the 'on-line' control of prehension. Spatial Vision, 16, 295-309.
9. BRADSHAW, M. F., ELLIOT, K. M., WATT, S. J., HIBBARD, P. B., DAVIES, I. R. L., & SIMPSON, P. J. (2004). Binocular cues and the control of prehension. Spatial Vision, 17, 95-110.
10. BRENNER, E., & VAN DAMME, W. J. M. (1999). Perceived distance, shape and size. Vision Research, 39, 975-986.
11. COATS, R., BINGHAM, G. P., & MON- WILLIAMS, M. (in press). Calibrating grasp size and reach distance: Interactions reveal integral organization in reaching-to-grasp movements. Experimental Brain Research.
12. CROWELL, J. A., TODD, J. T., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2000, November). Distinct visuomotor transformations for visually guided reaching. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.
13. CROWELL, J. A., TODD, J. T., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2001, May). Distinct perceptual representations for visually guided reaches. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Vision Sciences Society, Sarasota, FL.
14. CUIJPERS, R. H., SMEETS, J. B. J., & BRENNER, E. (2004). On the relation between object shape and grasping kinematics. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91, 2598-2606.
15. EAGLE, R. A., & HOGERVORST, M. A. (1999). The role of perspective information in the recovery of 3D structure-from-motion. Vision Research, 39, 1713-1722.
16. HIBBARD, P. B., & BRADSHAW, M. F. (2003). Reaching for virtual objects: Binocular disparity and the control of prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 148, 196-201.
17. HOGERVORST, M. A., & EAGLE, R. A. (2000). The role of perspective effects and accelerations in perceived three-dimensional structure-from-motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 934-955.
18. KOENDERINK, J. J. (1990). Solid shape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. KOENDERINK, J. J., & VAN DOORN, A. J. (1991). Affine structure from motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 9, 377-385.
20. LAPPIN, J. S., & AHLSTRÖM, U. B. (1994). On the scaling of visual space from motion - in response to Pizlo and Salach-Golyska. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 235-242.
21. LEE, Y. -L., CRABTREE, C. E., NORMAN, J. F., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2008). Poor shape perception is the reason reaches-to-grasp are visually guided online. Manuscript submitted for publication.
22. LIND, M., BINGHAM, G. P., & FORSELL, C. (2003). Metric 3D structure in visualizations. Information Visualization, 2, 51-57.
23. LOOMIS, J. M., PHILBECK, J. W., & ZAHORIK, P. (2002). Dissociation between location and shape in visual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 1202-1212.
24. MELMOTH, D. R., & GRANT, S. (2006). Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 171, 371-388.
25. MON-WILLIAMS, M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2007). Calibrating reach distance to visual targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 645-656.
26. MON-WILLIAMS, M., COATS, R., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2004). Reaching with feeling [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 4, 411a.
27. PAGANO, C. C., & BINGHAM, G. P. (1998). Comparing measures of monocular distance perception: Verbal reaching errors are not correlated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1037-1051.
28. PEDHAZUR, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
29. PEROTTI, V. J., TODD, J. T., LAPPIN, J. S., & PHILLIPS, F. (1998). The perception of surface curvature from optical motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 377-388.
30. PEROTTI, V. J., TODD, J. T., & NORMAN, J. F. (1996). The visual perception of rigid motion from constant flow fields. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 666-679.
31. SCARFE, P., & HIBBARD, P. B. (2006). Disparity-defined objects moving in depth do not elicit three-dimensional shape constancy. Vision Research, 46, 1599-1610.
32. TITTLE, J. S., TODD, J. T., PEROTTI, V. J., & NORMAN, J. F. (1995). Systematic distortion of perceived three-dimensional structure from motion and binocular stereopsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 663-678.
33. TODD, J. T., & BRESSAN, P. (1990). The perception of 3-dimensional affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 419-430.
34. TODD, J. T., & NORMAN, J. F. (1991). The visual perception of smoothly curved surfaces from minimal apparent motion sequences. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 509-523.
35. TODD, J. T., TITTLE, J. S., & NORMAN, J. F. (1995). Distortions of three-dimensional space in the perceptual analysis of motion and stereo. Perception, 24, 75-86.
36. WATT, S. J., & BRADSHAW, M. F. (2000). Binocular cues are important in controlling the grasp but not the reach in natural prehension movements. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1473-1481.
37. WATT, S. J., & BRADSHAW, M. F. (2003). The visual control of reaching and grasping: Binocular disparity and motion parallax. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 404-415.