Stereo improves 3D shape discrimination even when rich monocular shape cues are available

Journal of Vision

Volumn 11, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1-12

  Lee, Young Lim ^a   Saunders, Jeffrey A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Cue combination; Shading; Shape discrimination; Stereo; Viewpoint invariance

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; ILLUMINATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MONOCULAR VISION; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CUES; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LIGHTING; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISION, MONOCULAR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80054710819     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/11.9.6     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Battu, B., Kappers, A. M. L., & Koenderink, J. J. (2007). Ambiguity in pictorial depth. Perception, 36, 1290-1304.
2. Belhumeur, P. N., Kriegman, D., & Yuille, A. L. (1999). The bas-relief ambiguity. International Journal of Computer Vision, 35, 33-44.
3. Bennett, D. J., & Vuong, Q. C. (2006). A stereo advantage in generalizing over changes in viewpoint on object recognition tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1082-1093.
4. Bülthoff, H. H., & Mallot, H. A. (1988). Integration of depth modules: Stereo and shading. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 5, 1749-1758.
5. Burke, D. (2005). Combining disparate views of objects: Viewpoint costs are reduced by stereopsis. Visual Cognition, 12, 705-719.
6. Burke, D., Taubert, J., & Higman, T. (2007). Are face representations viewpoint dependent? A stereo advantage for generalizing across different views of faces. Vision Research, 47, 2164-2169.
7. Chan, M. W., Stevenson, A. K., Li, Y., & Pizlo, Z. (2006). Binocular shape constancy from novel views: The role of a prior constraints. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1124-1139.
8. Di Luca, M., Domini, F., & Caudek, C. (2010). Inconsistency of perceived 3D shape. Vision Research, 50, 1519-1531.
9. Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385-2400.
10. Koenderink, J. J., van Doorn, A. J., Kappers, A. M. L., & Todd, J. T. (2001). Ambiguity and the 'mental eye' in pictorial relief. Perception, 30, 431-448.
11. Liu, C. H., Collin, C. A., & Chaudhuri, A. (2000). Does face recognition rely on encoding of 3-D surface? Examining the role of shape-from-shading and shapefrom-stereo. Perception, 29, 729-743.
12. Liu, C. H., & Kersten, D. (2003). Three-dimensional symmetric shapes are discriminated more efficiently than asymmetric ones. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 20, 1331-1339.
13. Liu, C. H., Ward, J., & Young, A. W. (2006). Transfer between two- and three-dimensional representations of faces. Visual Cognition, 13, 51-64.
14. Nefs, H. T., Koenderink, J. J., & Kappers, A. M. L. (2005). The influence of illumination direction on the pictorial reliefs of Lambertian surfaces. Perception, 34, 275-287.
15. Nefs, H. T., Koenderink, J. J., & Kappers, A. M. L. (2006). Shape-from-shading for matte and glossy objects. Acta Psychologica, 121, 297-316.
16. Norman, J. F., Bartholomew, A. N., & Burton, C. L. (2008). Aging preserves the ability to perceive 3D object shape from static but not deforming boundary contours. Acta Psychologica, 129, 198-207.
17. Norman, J. F., Swindle, J. M., Jennings, R., Mullins, E. M., & Beers, A. M. (2009). Stereoscopic shape discrimination is well preserved across changes in object size. Acta Psychologica, 131, 129-135.
18. Norman, J. F., Todd, J. T., & Orban, G. A. (2004). Perception of three-dimensional shape from specular highlights, deformations of shading, and other types of visual information. Psychological Science, 15, 565-570.
19. Norman, J. F., Todd, J. T., & Phillips, F. (1995). The perception of surface orientation from multiple sources of optical information. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 629-636.
20. O'Shea, J. P., Agrawala, M., & Banks, M. S. (2010). The influence of shape cues on the perception of lighting direction. Journal of Vision, 10(12):21, 1-21, http://www.journalofvision.org/content/10/12/21, doi:10.1167/10.12.21.
21. Pasqualotto, A., & Hayward, W. G. (2009). A stereo disadvantage for recognizing rotated familiar objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 832-838.
22. Pizlo, Z., Li, Y., & Steinman, R. M. (2008). Binocular disparity only comes into play when everything else fails; a finding with broader implications than one might suppose. Spatial Vision, 21, 495-508.
23. Pizlo, Z., & Stevenson, A. K. (1999). Shape constancy from novel view. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1299-1307.
24. Todd, J. T., Norman, J. F., Koenderink, J. J., & Kappers, A. M. L. (1997). Effects of texture, illumination and surface reflectance on stereoscopic shape perception. Perception, 26, 807-822.
25. Vuong, Q. C., Domini, F., & Caudek, C. (2006). Disparity and shading cues cooperate for surface interpolation, Perception, 35, 145-155.