PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12269588

Perceived internal depth in rotating and translating objects.

Abstract

Previous research has indicated that observers use differences between velocities and ratios of velocities to judge the depth within a moving object, although depth cannot in general be determined from these quantities. In four experiments we examined the relative effects of velocity difference and velocity ratio on judged depth within a transparent object that was rotating about a vertical axis and translating horizontally, examined the effects of the velocity difference for pure rotations and pure translations, and examined the effect of the velocity difference for objects that varied in simulated internal depth. Both the velocity difference and the velocity ratio affected judged depth, with difference having the larger effect. The effect of velocity difference was greater for pure rotations than for pure translations. Simulated depth did not affect judged depth unless there was a corresponding change in the projected width of the object. Observers appear to use the velocity difference, the velocity ratio, and the projected width of the object heuristically to judge internal object depth, rather than using image information from which relative depth could potentially be recovered.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Myron L Braunstein, Craig W Sauer, Cary Strumpf Feria, George J Andersen. 2002. Perceived internal depth in rotating and translating objects.. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3294

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Similar effects of a motion-in-depth illusion on manual tracking and perceptual judgements.

We previously demonstrated that changing the apparent extent of a target's apparent motion-in-depth, by manipulating pictorial depth cues in the surrounding, affected perceptual judgements and manual pursuit to the same extent. Here, we investigated whether a different manipulation of the extent of motion (expanding and contracting the object itself) also has the same effect on both tasks. Objects were presented that changed in size as they moved on an elliptical path. The size was related to the object's position in the sagittal plane, suggesting additional motion in depth; therefore the illusion was expected to affect sagittal measures for both perception and action. We measured manual tracking and perceptual judgements of the lateral and sagittal extents of the object's elliptical trajectories. A significant correlation was found across subjects between the effect of the illusion on the perceptual and the motor task. As expected, the illusion only had a significant influence on the sagittal dimension. The size of this illusory effect was equal for perception and action.

Cues↗

Changing perspective within and across environments.

Perspective change within a single environment is a slow and effortful process. However, little research has addressed perspective change across multiple environments. Using a task-set switching paradigm, subjects judged spatial relationships between target locations from differing perspectives. Response times were longer when successive trials probed different perspectives. However, this cost was greater when perspective was changed within a single environment compared to when it was changed across two environments. This result indicates that the processing of perspective change, and perhaps general spatial reasoning, differs in these two cases. Implications for theories of perspective change and environmental knowledge are discussed.

Cues↗

An evidential support accumulation model of subjective probability.

A model of cue-based probability judgment is developed within the framework of support theory. Cue diagnosticity is evaluated from experience as represented by error-free frequency counts. When presented with a pattern of cues, the diagnostic implications of each cue are assessed independently and then summed to arrive at an assessment of the support for a hypothesis, with greater weight placed on present than on absent cues. The model can also accommodate adjustment of support in light of the baserate or prior probability of a hypothesis. Support for alternatives packed together in a "residual" hypothesis is discounted; fewer cues are consulted in assessing support for alternatives as support for the focal hypothesis increases. Results of fitting this and several alternative models to data from four new multiple-cue probability learning experiments are reported.

Cues↗