Hinge versus twist: The effects of 'reference surfaces' and discontinuities on stereoscopic slant perception

Barbara Gillam, Shane Blackburn, Kevin Brooks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Stereoscopic slant perception around a vertical axis (horizontal slant) is often found to be strongly attenuated relative to geometric prediction. Stereo slant is much greater, however, when an adjacent surface, stereoscopically in the frontal plane, is added. This slant enhancement is often attributed to the presence of a 'reference surface' or to a spatial change in the disparity gradient (introducing second and higher derivatives of disparity). Gillam, Chambers, and Russo (1988 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14 163 -175) questioned the role of these factors in that placement of the frontal-plane surface in a direction collinear with the slant axis (twist configuration) sharply reduced latency for perceiving slant whereas placing the same surface in a direction orthogonal to the slant axis (hinge configuration) had little effect. We here confirm these findings for slant magnitude, showing a striking advantage for twist over hinge configurations. We also examined contrast slant measured on the frontal-plane surface in the hinge and twist configurations. Under conditions where test and inducer surfaces have centres at the same depth for twist and hinge, we found that twist configurations produced strong negative slant contrast, while hinge configurations produced significant positive contrast or slant assimilation. We conclude that stereo slant and contrast effects for neighbouring surfaces can only be understood from the patterns and gradients of step disparities present. It is not adequate to consider the second surface merely as a reference slant for the first or as having its effect via a spatial change in the disparity gradient.

LanguageEnglish
Pages596-616
Number of pages21
JournalPerception
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Hinges
Experimental Psychology
Direction compound
Derivatives

Cite this

@article{ffeacbd2de8541d19638a9cb8ff37754,
title = "Hinge versus twist: The effects of 'reference surfaces' and discontinuities on stereoscopic slant perception",
abstract = "Stereoscopic slant perception around a vertical axis (horizontal slant) is often found to be strongly attenuated relative to geometric prediction. Stereo slant is much greater, however, when an adjacent surface, stereoscopically in the frontal plane, is added. This slant enhancement is often attributed to the presence of a 'reference surface' or to a spatial change in the disparity gradient (introducing second and higher derivatives of disparity). Gillam, Chambers, and Russo (1988 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14 163 -175) questioned the role of these factors in that placement of the frontal-plane surface in a direction collinear with the slant axis (twist configuration) sharply reduced latency for perceiving slant whereas placing the same surface in a direction orthogonal to the slant axis (hinge configuration) had little effect. We here confirm these findings for slant magnitude, showing a striking advantage for twist over hinge configurations. We also examined contrast slant measured on the frontal-plane surface in the hinge and twist configurations. Under conditions where test and inducer surfaces have centres at the same depth for twist and hinge, we found that twist configurations produced strong negative slant contrast, while hinge configurations produced significant positive contrast or slant assimilation. We conclude that stereo slant and contrast effects for neighbouring surfaces can only be understood from the patterns and gradients of step disparities present. It is not adequate to consider the second surface merely as a reference slant for the first or as having its effect via a spatial change in the disparity gradient.",
author = "Barbara Gillam and Shane Blackburn and Kevin Brooks",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1068/p5535",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "596--616",
journal = "Perception",
issn = "0301-0066",
publisher = "Pion",
number = "4",

}

Hinge versus twist : The effects of 'reference surfaces' and discontinuities on stereoscopic slant perception. / Gillam, Barbara; Blackburn, Shane; Brooks, Kevin.

In: Perception, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2007, p. 596-616.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hinge versus twist

T2 - Perception

AU - Gillam, Barbara

AU - Blackburn, Shane

AU - Brooks, Kevin

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Stereoscopic slant perception around a vertical axis (horizontal slant) is often found to be strongly attenuated relative to geometric prediction. Stereo slant is much greater, however, when an adjacent surface, stereoscopically in the frontal plane, is added. This slant enhancement is often attributed to the presence of a 'reference surface' or to a spatial change in the disparity gradient (introducing second and higher derivatives of disparity). Gillam, Chambers, and Russo (1988 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14 163 -175) questioned the role of these factors in that placement of the frontal-plane surface in a direction collinear with the slant axis (twist configuration) sharply reduced latency for perceiving slant whereas placing the same surface in a direction orthogonal to the slant axis (hinge configuration) had little effect. We here confirm these findings for slant magnitude, showing a striking advantage for twist over hinge configurations. We also examined contrast slant measured on the frontal-plane surface in the hinge and twist configurations. Under conditions where test and inducer surfaces have centres at the same depth for twist and hinge, we found that twist configurations produced strong negative slant contrast, while hinge configurations produced significant positive contrast or slant assimilation. We conclude that stereo slant and contrast effects for neighbouring surfaces can only be understood from the patterns and gradients of step disparities present. It is not adequate to consider the second surface merely as a reference slant for the first or as having its effect via a spatial change in the disparity gradient.

AB - Stereoscopic slant perception around a vertical axis (horizontal slant) is often found to be strongly attenuated relative to geometric prediction. Stereo slant is much greater, however, when an adjacent surface, stereoscopically in the frontal plane, is added. This slant enhancement is often attributed to the presence of a 'reference surface' or to a spatial change in the disparity gradient (introducing second and higher derivatives of disparity). Gillam, Chambers, and Russo (1988 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14 163 -175) questioned the role of these factors in that placement of the frontal-plane surface in a direction collinear with the slant axis (twist configuration) sharply reduced latency for perceiving slant whereas placing the same surface in a direction orthogonal to the slant axis (hinge configuration) had little effect. We here confirm these findings for slant magnitude, showing a striking advantage for twist over hinge configurations. We also examined contrast slant measured on the frontal-plane surface in the hinge and twist configurations. Under conditions where test and inducer surfaces have centres at the same depth for twist and hinge, we found that twist configurations produced strong negative slant contrast, while hinge configurations produced significant positive contrast or slant assimilation. We conclude that stereo slant and contrast effects for neighbouring surfaces can only be understood from the patterns and gradients of step disparities present. It is not adequate to consider the second surface merely as a reference slant for the first or as having its effect via a spatial change in the disparity gradient.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34249993132&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1068/p5535

DO - 10.1068/p5535

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 596

EP - 616

JO - Perception

JF - Perception

SN - 0301-0066

IS - 4

ER -