Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Cue combination for 3D location judgements

By Ellen Svarverud, Stuart J Gilson and Andrew Glennerster

Abstract

Cue combination rules have often been applied to the perception of surface shape but not to judgements of object location. Here, we used immersive virtual reality to explore the relationship between different cues to distance. Participants viewed a virtual scene and judged the change in distance of an object presented in two intervals, where the scene changed in size between intervals (by a factor of between 0.25 and 4). We measured thresholds for detecting a change in object distance when there were only 'physical' (stereo and motion parallax) or 'texture-based' cues (independent of the scale of the scene) and used these to predict biases in a distance matching task. Under a range of conditions, in which the viewing distance and position of the tarte relative to other objects was varied, the ration of 'physical' to 'texture-based' thresholds was a good predictor of biases in the distance matching task. The cue combination approach, which successfully accounts for our data, relies on quite different principles from those underlying geometric reconstruction

Topics: 573
Publisher: Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:centaur.reading.ac.uk:2047

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1993). A perturbation analysis of depth perception from combinations of texture and motion cues.
  2. (1990). A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications.
  3. (2001). Accommodation, occlusion, and disparity matching are used to guide reaching: A comparison of actual versus virtual environments.
  4. (2002). Combining sensory information: Mandatory fusion within, but not between, senses.
  5. (2005). Do humans integrate routes into a cognitive map? Map- versus landmark-based navigation of novel shortcuts.
  6. (2003). Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant?
  7. (2001). Fixation could simplify, not complicate, the interpretation of retinal flow.
  8. (2005). Focus cues affect perceived depth.
  9. (2004). Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
  10. (1995). Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: In defense of weak fusion.
  11. (2000). Multiple view geometry in computer vision.
  12. (2002). Perceptual metamers in stereoscopic vision. In
  13. (1976). Riemannian geometries of variable curvature in visual space: Visual alleys, horopters, and triangles in big open fields.
  14. (2004). Slant from texture and disparity cues: Optimal cue combination.
  15. (2006). Stereo and motion parallax cues in human 3D vision: Can they vanish without a trace?
  16. (1996). Stereoscopic depth constancy depends on the subject’s task.
  17. (1990). The imprecision of stereopsis.
  18. (1950). The metric of binocular visual space.
  19. (2009). View-based approaches to spatial representation in human vision.
  20. (1996). Visual perception of location and distance.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.