Despite its mathematical simplicity and ubiquity in imaging technology, there has long been doubt about the ability of linear perspective to best represent human visual space, especially at wide-angle fields of view under natural viewing conditions. We investigated whether changes to image geometry had an impact on participants’ performance, specifically in terms of non-metric distance estimates. Our multidisciplinary research team developed a new open-source image database to study distance perception in images by systematically manipulating target distance, field of view, and image projection using non-linear natural perspective projections. The database consists of 12 outdoor scenes of a virtual three-dimensional urban environment in which a target ball is presented at increasing distance, visualised using both linear perspective and natural perspective images, rendered, respectively, with three different fields of view: 100°, 120°, and 140° horizontally. In the first experiment (N = 52), we tested the effects of linear versus natural perspective on non-metric distance judgements. In the second experiment (N = 195), we investigated the influence of contextual and previous familiarity with linear perspective, and individual differences in spatial skills on distance estimations. The results of both experiments showed that distance estimation accuracy improved in natural compared with linear perspective images, particularly at wide-angle fields of view. Moreover, undertaking a training session with only natural perspective images led to more accurate distance judgements overall. We argue that the efficacy of natural perspective may stem from its resemblance to the way objects appear under natural viewing conditions, and that this can provide insights into the phenomenological structure of visual space.
AndersenK. (2007). The geometry of an art: The history of the mathematical theory of perspective from Alberti to Monge. Springer-Verlag.
3.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
4.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
5.
BaldwinJ. (2016). Can artistic methods be used to improve the perception of depth in pictures? [Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan University].
6.
BaldwinJ.BurleighA.PepperellR.RutaN. (2016). The perceived size and shape of objects in peripheral vision. i-Perception, 7(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516661900
7.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BernhardC.HechtH. (2021). The ups and downs of camera-monitor systems: The effect of camera position on rearward distance perception. Human Factors, 63(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819895866
9.
BertaminiM.JonesL. A.SpoonerA.HechtH. (2005). Boundary extension: The role of magnification, object size, context, and binocular information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1288–1307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1288
10.
BurleighA.PepperellR.RutaN. (2018). Natural perspective: Mapping visual space with art and science. Vision, 2(2), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision2020021
11.
BurleighA.PepperellR.RutaN. (2021). Art and the geometry of visual space. In FlashT.BerthozA. (Eds.), Space-time geometries for motion and perception in the brain and the arts. Lecture notes in morphogenesis (pp. 129–149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57227-3_7
12.
ChamberlainR.PepperellR. (2020). Slow looking at slow art: The work of Pierre Bonnard. Leonardo, 54, 615–618.
13.
ChamberlainR.WagemansJ. (2015). Visual arts training is linked to flexible attention to local and global levels of visual stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 161, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.08.012
CohenD. J.JonesH. E. (2008). How shape constancy relates to drawing accuracy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.1.8
16.
Creem-RegehrS. H.KunzB. R. (2010). Perception and action. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(6), 800–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.82
17.
Creem-RegehrS. H.WillemsenP.GoochA. A.ThompsonW. B. (2005). The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: Implications for real and virtual indoor environments. Perception, 34(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5144
18.
DabbsJ. M.JrChangE. L.StrongR. A.MilunR. (1998). Spatial ability, navigation strategy, and geographic knowledge among men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(2), 89–98.
HauckG. (1879). Die subjektive Perspektive und die horizontalen Curvaturen des dorischen Styls: Eine perspektivisch-ästhetische Studie. K. Wittwer Verlag.
21.
HelmholtzH. L. F. (1924). Treatise on physiological optics (3rd ed.). Optical Society of America.
22.
HerdmanW. G. (1853). A treatise on the curvilinear perspective of nature: And its applicability to art. John Weale & Co.
23.
IndowT. (2004). The global structure of visual space. World Scientific.
IntraubH.BenderR. S.MangelsJ. A. (1992). Looking at pictures but remembering scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 180–191.
26.
KessenichJ. M.SellersG.ShreinerD., & OpenGL Architecture Review Board. (2017). OpenGL® programming guide: The official guide to learning OpenGL®, version 4.5 with SPIR-V. Addison-Wesley.
27.
KingslakeR. (1992). Optics in photography. SPIE Publications.
28.
KoenderinkJ. J.van DoornA. J. (2008). The structure of visual spaces. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 31, 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-008-0076-3
29.
KoenderinkJ. J.Van DoornA. J.LappinJ. S. (2000). Direct measurement of the curvature of visual space. Perception, 29(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2921
LinnM. C.PetersenA. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467
32.
LoranE. (1963). Cézanne’s composition. University of California Press.
33.
LüdeckeD.Ben-ShacharM. S.PatilI.WaggonerP.MakowskiD. (2021). performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60), Article 3139. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139
34.
MacCurdyE. (1954). The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. The Reprint Society.
35.
MachotkaP. (1996). Cézanne: Landscape into art. Yale University Press.
36.
MacnairJ. L. P. (1957). Spherical perspective. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 105(5010), 762–780.
37.
MaltonT. A. (1775). Complete treatise on perspective in theory and practice on the true principles of Dr. Brook Taylor. Robinson.
38.
MitchellP.RoparD.AckroydK.RajendranG. (2005). How perception impacts on drawings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 996–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.996
39.
MoèA. (2009). Are males always better than females in mental rotation? Exploring a gender belief explanation. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.02.002
40.
MoèA.MeneghettiC.CadinuM. (2009). Women and mental rotation: Incremental theory and spatial strategy use enhance performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.030
41.
NaceriA.ChellaliR. (2012, March4). The effect of isolated disparity on depth perception in real and virtual environments [Conference session]. IEEE Virtual Reality Workshops (VRW), Costa Mesa, CA. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2012.6180905
42.
OrtnerT. M.SieverdingM. (2008). Where are the gender differences? Male priming boosts spatial skills in women. Sex Roles, 59(3–4), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9448-9
43.
OstrofskyJ.KozbeltA.SeidelA. (2012). Perceptual constancies and visual selection as predictors of realistic drawing skill. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026384
44.
PanofskyE. (1924). Perspective as symbolic form. Zone Books.
45.
ParseyA. (1840). The science of vision, or, natural perspective!Longmar & Company.
46.
PepperellR. (2015). Egocentric perspective: Depicting the body from its own point of view. Leonardo, 48(5), 424–429. https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_01056
47.
PepperellR.BurleighA. (2017). Improvements in and relating to image making. Patent US9684946B2, USA.
48.
PepperellR.HaertelM. (2014). Do artists use linear perspective to depict visual space?Perception, 43(5), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7692
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
56.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.
57.
RennerR. S.VelichkovskyB. M.HelmertJ. R. (2013). The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments-a review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 46(2), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/0000000.0000000
58.
RuggieroG.SergiI.IachiniT. (2008). Gender differences in remembering and inferring spatial distances. Memory, 16(8), 821–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802307695
SaraciniC.BassoD.Olivetti BelardinelliM. (2020). Stereoscopy does not improve metric distance estimations in virtual environments. In CicalòE. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Image and Imagination. IMG 2019 (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 1140, pp. 907–922). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41018-6_74
61.
SaraciniC.Olivetti BelardinelliM.HoepfnerA.BassoD. (2020). Differences in distance estimations in real and virtual 3D environments. In CicalòE. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Image and Imagination. IMG 2019 (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 1140, pp. 881–896). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41018-6_72
62.
TarampiM. R.HeydariN.HegartyM. (2016). A tale of two types of perspective taking: Sex differences in spatial ability. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1507–1516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616667459
63.
TodorovićD. (2009). The effect of the observer vantage point on perceived distortions in linear perspective images. Perception & Psychophysics, 71(1), 183–193.
64.
VandenbergS. G.KuseA. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599–604. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599
65.
VoyerD.VoyerS.BrydenM. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250
66.
WagnerM. (2006). The geometries of visual space. Psychology Press.
67.
WittJ. K.StefanucciJ. K.RienerC. R.ProffittD. R. (2007). Seeing beyond the target: Environmental context affects distance perception. Perception, 36(12), 1752–1768. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5617
