The perception of depth in monocularly viewed pictures has been investigated with the use of a binocular rangefinder developed by Gregory. Two experiments are reported which focus upon stimulus conditions that were identified by Haber as conventions for rendering depth in pictures. Several conclusions, which concern assumptions that must be made in interpreting pictures according to such conventions, are supported by the results. There is a default or assumed layout of background space. The interpretation of a point in a depiction depends upon the interpretation of neighboring points, so that interpretations of local features influence the interpretations of nearby ‘empty’ areas. In photographs, the magnitude of apparent depth depends upon the degree of discrepancy between the position of the illuminating source and the observer's supposed light-source position. Also in photographs, apparent depth increases as the contrast between highlights and attached shadows increases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnheimR, 1954Art and Visual Perception (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press) p 260.
2.
BeckJ, 1972Surface Color Perception (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
3.
BerbaumKBeverTChungC S, 1983“Light source position in the perception of object shape”Perception in press.
4.
BoringE G, 1942Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts) pp 267–268.
5.
BrewsterD, 1826“On the optical illusion of the conversion of cameos into intaglios and of intaglios into cameos, with an account of other analogous phenomena”Edinburgh Journal of Science4 (January).
6.
BrewsterD, 1832Letters on Natural Magic (London: John Murray).
7.
BrewsterD, 1844“On the conversion of relief by inverted vision”Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (London: Robert Grant).
8.
Da Vinci LeonardoTreatise on Painting translated by RigandJ F (London: George Bell, 1887).
9.
DeregowskiJ BBythW, 1970“Hudson's pictures in Pandora's box”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology1315–323.
10.
GibsonJ J, 1950The Perception of the Visual World (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).
11.
GibsonJ J, 1960“Pictures, perspective, and perception”Daedalus89216–227.
12.
GibsonJ J, 1966The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).
GregoryR L, 1966Eye and Brain (New York: McGraw-Hill).
15.
GregoryR L, 1970The Intelligent Eye (New York: McGraw-Hill).
16.
GuzmanA, 1968Computer Recognition of Three-dimensional Objects in a Visual Sceneunpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
17.
HaberR N, 1978“Perception of visual space in scenes and in pictures”paper presented at The Conference on the Interrelations among the Communicative SensesAsilomar, CA, USA.
18.
HaberR N, 1980“How we perceive depth from flat pictures”American Psychologist68370–380.
19.
HochbergJ, 1968“In the mind's eye” in Contemporary Theory and Research in Visual Perception Ed. HaberR N (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winson).
20.
HochbergJ E, 1972“The representation of things and people in Art, Perception and Reality Eds GombrichE HHochbergJBlackM (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopins University Press) pp 47–94.
21.
HochbergJ E, 1978“Art and perception” in Handbook of Perceptionvolume 10, Eds CarteretteCFriedmanH (New York: Academic Press).
22.
HornB, 1975“Obtaining shape from shading information” in The Psychology of Computer Vision Ed. WinstonP H (New York: McGraw-Hill).
23.
JohanssonG, 1973“Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis”Perception & Psychophysics14201–211.
24.
JuleszB, 1971Foundations of Cyclopean Perception (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
25.
KaufmanL, 1974Sight and Mind: An Introduction to Visual Perception (New York: Oxford University Press).
26.
KennedyJ M, 1974A Psychology of Picture Perception: Information and Images (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
27.
OppelJ J, 1856“Über ein Anaglyptoskop”Poggendorff's Annalen der Physik und Chemie99466–469, Series II.
28.
RittenhouseD, 1786“Explanation of an optical deception”Transactions of American Philosophical Society237–42.
29.
SchröderH, 1858“Über eine optische Inversion bei Betrachtung verkehrter, durch optische Vorrichtung entworfener, physischer Bilder”Poggendorff's Annalen der Physik und Chemie105298–322, Series II.
30.
SmithO WSmithP CHubbardD, 1958“Perceived distance as a function of the method of representing perspective”American Journal of Psychology71662–675.
31.
UllmanS, 1976The Interpretation of Structure from MotionMassachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI Memo 476, October, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
32.
WeissteinNHarrisC, 1974“An object superiority effects in the visual detection of line segments”Science186752–755.
33.
WeissteinNWilliamsM CHarrisC S, 1979“Line segments are harder to see than flatter patterns: The role of three-dimensionality in ‘object-line’ and ‘object-superiority’ effects”Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society14229–230.
34.
WoodworthRSchlosbergH, 1954Experimental Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston).
