Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 183–195 | Cite as

Slant-tilt: The visual encoding of surface orientation

  • Kent A. Stevens


A specific form for the internal representation of local surface orientation is proposed, which is similar to Gibson's (1950) “amount and direction of slant”. Slant amount is usually quantifed by the angle σ between the surface normal and the line of sight (0°≦σ≦90°). Slant direction corresponds to the direction of the gradient of distance from the viewer to the surface, and may be defined by the image direction τ to which the surface normal would project (0°≦τ≦360°). Since the direction of slant is specified by the tilt of the projected surface normal, it is referred to as surface tilt (Stevens, 1979; Marr, 1982). The two degrees of freedom of orientation are therefore quantified by slant, an angle measured perpendicular to the image plane, and tilt, an angle measured in the image plane. The slanttilt form provides several computational advantages relative to some other proposals and is consistent with various psychological phenomena. Slant might be encoded by various means, e.g. by the cosine of the angle, by the tangent, or linearly by the angle itself. Experimental results are reported that suggest that slant is encoded by an internal parameter that varies linearly with slant angle, with resolution of roughly one part in 100. Thus we propose that surface orientation is encoded in human vision by two quantities, one varying linearly with slant angle, the other varying linearly with tilt angle.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Attneave, F.: Representation of physical space. In: Coding processes in human memory, Melton, A.W., Martin, E. eds., New York: Wiley 1972Google Scholar
  2. Attneave, F., Frost, R.: The determination of perceived tridimensional orientation by minimum criteria. Percep. Psychophys. 6, 391–396 (1969)Google Scholar
  3. Balch, W., Milewski, A., Yonas, A.: Mechanisms underlying the slant aftereffect, Percept. Psychophys. 21, 581–585 (1977)Google Scholar
  4. Bergman, R., Gibson, J.J.: The negative after-effect of the perception of a surface slanted in the third dimension. Am. J. Psychol. 72, 364–374 (1959)Google Scholar
  5. Clark, W.C., Smith, A.H., Rabe, A.: The interaction of surface texture, outline gradient, and in the perception of slant. Can. J. Psychol. 10, 1–8 (1956)Google Scholar
  6. Flock, H.R.: Optical texture and linear perspective as stimuli for slant perception. Psychol. Rev. 72, 505–514 (1965)Google Scholar
  7. Flock, H.R., Graves, D., Tenney, J., Stephenson, B.: Slant judgments of single rectangles at a slant. Psychon. Sci. 7, 57–58 (1967)Google Scholar
  8. Foley, J.M.: The size distance relation and intrinsic geometry of visual space: implications for processing. Vision Res. 12, 323–332 (1972)Google Scholar
  9. Gibson, J.J.: The perception of visual surfaces. Am. J. Psychol. 63, 367–384 (1950)Google Scholar
  10. Gibson, J.J.: The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin 1966Google Scholar
  11. Gordon, D.A.: Static and dynamic visual fields in human space perception. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 55, 1296–1303 (1965)Google Scholar
  12. Gregory, R.L.: The intellignet eye. New York: McGraw-Hill 1970Google Scholar
  13. Helmholtz, H.L.F. von: Treatise on physiological optics. Transl. by J.P. Southall, New York: Dover Publications 1925Google Scholar
  14. Hoffman, D.D.: Interring local surface orientation from motion fields. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72, 888–892Google Scholar
  15. Horn, B.K.P.: Obtaining shape from shading information. In: The psychology of computer vision, Winston, P.H. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill 1975Google Scholar
  16. Kaiser, P.K.: Perceived shape and its dependency on perceived slant. J. Exp. Psychol. 75, 345–353 (1967)Google Scholar
  17. Koenderink, J.J., van Doorn, A.J.: Local structure of movement parallax of the plane. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 717–723 (1976)Google Scholar
  18. Kohler, W., Emery, D.: Figural aftereffects in the third dimension of visual space. Am. J. Psychol. 60, 159–201 (1947)Google Scholar
  19. Kraft, A.L., Winnick, W.A.: The effect of pattern and texture gradient on slant and shape judgments. Percept. Psychophys. 1967, 141–147 (1967)Google Scholar
  20. Longuet-Higgins, H.C., Prazdny, K.: The interpretation of a moving retinal image. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 208, 385–397 (1980)Google Scholar
  21. Mackworth, A.K.: Interpreting pictures of polyhedral scenes. Art. Intell. 4, 121–137 (1973)Google Scholar
  22. Marr, D.: Early processing of visual information. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 275, 483–524 (1976)Google Scholar
  23. Marr, D.: Representing visual information. AAAS 143rd Annual Meeting, Symposium on Some Mathematical Questions in Biology, February. In: Lectures in the Life Sciences 10, 101–180 (1978)Google Scholar
  24. Marr, D.: Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Franscisco: Freeman 1982Google Scholar
  25. Marr, D., Hildreth, E.: Theory of edge detection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 207, 187–217 (1980)Google Scholar
  26. Marr, D., Poggio, T.: From understanding computation to under-standing neural circuitry. Neurosci. Res. Prog. Bull. 15, 470–488 (1977)Google Scholar
  27. Marr, D., Nishihara, K.: Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 200, 269–294 (1978)Google Scholar
  28. Nakayama, K., Loomis, J.M.: Optical velocity patterns, velocitysensitive neurons, and space perception: a hypothesis. Perception 3, 63–80 (1974)Google Scholar
  29. Olson, R.K.: Slant judgments from static and rotating trapezoids correspond to rules of perspective geometry. Percept. Psychophys. 15, 509–516 (1974)Google Scholar
  30. Prazdny, K.: Egomotion and relative depth map from optical flow. Biol. Cybern. 36, 87–102 (1980)Google Scholar
  31. Purdy, W.C.: The hypothesis of psychophysical correspondence in space perception. General Electric Technical Information Series, No. R60 ELC 56 (1960)Google Scholar
  32. Richards, W.. Visual space perception. In: Handbook of perception, Vol. V. Carterette, E.C., Friedman, M.P. eds. New York: Academic Press 1975Google Scholar
  33. Smith, A.H.: Interaction of form and exposure time in the perception of slant. Percpet. Motor Skills 20, 481–490 (1965)Google Scholar
  34. Stevens, K.A.: Representing and analyzing surface orientation. In: Artificial intelligence: an MIT perspective. Winston, P.H., Brown, R.H. eds. Cambridge: MIT Press 1979Google Scholar
  35. Stevens, K.A.: The visual interpretation of surface contours. Art. Intell. 17, 47–73 (1981)Google Scholar
  36. Stevens, K.A.: The information content of texture gradients. Biol. Cybern. 42, 95–105 (1981)Google Scholar
  37. Stevens, K.A.: Surface tilt (the direction of slant): a neglected psychophysical variable. Percep. Psychophys. (in press)Google Scholar
  38. Ullman, S.: The interpretation of visual motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1979Google Scholar
  39. Witkin, A.P.: Estimating shape from texture. Art. Intell. 17, 17–45 (1981)Google Scholar
  40. Youngs, W.M.: The influence of perspective and disparity cues on the perception of slant. Vision Res. 16, 79–82 (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kent A. Stevens
    • 1
  1. 1.The Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations