Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 69, Issue 1–2, pp 30–40 | Cite as

Interaction of color and geometric cues in depth perception: When does “red” mean “near”?

  • Christophe R. C. GuibalEmail author
  • Birgitta Dresp
Original Article

Abstract

Luminance and color are strong and self-sufficient cues to pictorial depth in visual scenes and images. The present study investigates the conditions under which luminance or color either strengthens or overrides geometric depth cues. We investigated how luminance contrast associated with the color red and color contrast interact with relative height in the visual field, partial occlusion, and interposition to determine the probability that a given figure presented in a pair is perceived as “nearer” than the other. Latencies of “near” responses were analyzed to test for effects of attentional selection. Figures in a pair were supported by luminance contrast (Experiment 1) or isoluminant color contrast (Experiment 2) and combined with one of the three geometric cues. The results of Experiment 1 show that the luminance contrast of a color (here red), when it does not interact with other colors, produces the same effects as achromatic luminance contrasts. The probability of “near” increases with the luminance contrast of the color stimulus, the latencies for “near” responses decrease with increasing luminance contrast. Partial occlusion is found to be a strong enough pictorial cue to support a weaker red luminance contrast. Interposition cues lose out against cues of spatial position and partial occlusion. The results of Experiment 2, with isoluminant displays of varying color contrast, reveal that red color contrast on a light background supported by any of the three geometric cues wins over green or white supported by any of the three geometric cues. On a dark background, red color contrast supported by the interposition cue loses out against green or white color contrast supported by partial occlusion. These findings reveal that color is not an independent depth cue, but is strongly influenced by luminance contrast and stimulus geometry. Systematically shorter response latencies for stronger “near” percepts demonstrate that selective visual attention reliably detects the most likely depth cue combination in a given configuration.

Keywords

Partial Occlusion Luminance Contrast Selective Visual Attention Boundary Contour System Pictorial Depth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Brewster, D. (1851) Notice of a chromatic stereoscope. Philosophical Magazine, 4th Series, 3, 31.Google Scholar
  2. Bruno, N., & Cutting, J. E. (1988) Minimodularity and the perception of layout. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 161–170.Google Scholar
  3. Bugelski, B. R. (1967) Traffic signals and depth perception. Science, 157, 1464–1465.Google Scholar
  4. Da Vinci, Leonardo (1651) Trattato della Pittura di Leonardo da Vinci. Scritta da Raffaelle du Fresne. Paris: Langlois.Google Scholar
  5. Dengler, M., & Nitschke, W. (1993) Color stereopsis: a model for depth reversals based on border contrast. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 150–156.Google Scholar
  6. Desimone, R., & Schein, S. J. (1987) Visual properties of neurons in area V4 of the macaque: sensitivity to stimulus form. Journal of Neurophysiology, 57, 835–868.Google Scholar
  7. Dresp, B., & Fischer, S. (2001) Asymmetrical contrast effects induced by luminance and color configurations. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1262–1270.Google Scholar
  8. Dresp, B., & Grossberg, S. (1999) Spatial facilitation by color and luminance edges: Boundary, surface, and attentional factors. Vision Research, 37, 913–924.Google Scholar
  9. Dresp, B., Durand, S., & Grossberg, S. (2002) Depth perception from pairs of overlapping cues in pictorial displays. Spatial Vision, 15, 255–276.Google Scholar
  10. Egusa, H. (1983) Effects of brightness, hue, and saturation on perceived depth between adjacent regions in the visual field. Perception, 12, 167–175.Google Scholar
  11. Gibson, J. J. (1950) Perception of the visual world. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. Goolsby, B. A., & Suzuki, S. (2001) Understanding priming of color-singleton search: roles of attention at encoding and “retrieval”. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 929–944.Google Scholar
  13. Grossberg, S. (1997) Cortical dynamics of three-dimensional figure-ground perception of two-dimensional figures. Psychological Review, 104, 618–658.Google Scholar
  14. Hartridge, H. (1947) The visual perception of fine detail. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 232, 519–671.Google Scholar
  15. Knill, D. (2003) Mixture models and the probabilistic structure of depth cues. Vision Research, 43, 831–854.Google Scholar
  16. Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., & Young, M. (1995) Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: In defense of weak fusion. Vision Research, 35, 389–412.Google Scholar
  17. Magnussen, S., & Glad, A. (1975) Brightness and darkness enhancement during flicker: Perceptual correlates of neuronal B- and D- systems in human vision. Experimental Brain Research, 22, 399–413.Google Scholar
  18. Nakayama, K., & Silverman, G. H. (1986) Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions. Nature, 320, 264–265.Google Scholar
  19. Nakayama, K., Shimojo, S, & Ramachandran, V. S. (1990) Transparency, relation to depth, subjective contours, luminance, and neon color spreading. Perception, 19, 497–513.Google Scholar
  20. O’Shea, R. P., Blackburn, S. G., & Ono, H. (1994) Contrast as a depth cue. Vision Research, 34, 1595–1604.Google Scholar
  21. Rock, I., Shallo, J., & Schwartz, F. (1978) Pictorial depth and related constancy effects as a function of recognition. Perception, 7, 3–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rohaly, A. M., & Wilson, H. R. (1993) The role of contrast in depth perception. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34, 1437.Google Scholar
  23. Ross, H. E. (1967) Water, fog, and the size distance invariance hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology, 58, 301–313.Google Scholar
  24. Simonet, P., & Campbell, M. C. W. (1990) Effect of luminance on the directions of chromatostereopsis and transverse chromatic aberration observed with natural pupils. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, 10, 271–279.Google Scholar
  25. Tolhurst, D. J. (1975) Reaction times in the detection of gratings by human observers: A probabilistic mechanism. Vision Research, 15, 1143–1149.Google Scholar
  26. Verhoeff, F. H. (1928) An optical illusion due to chromatic aberration. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 11, 898–900.Google Scholar
  27. Yantis, S., & Jones, E. (1991) Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 166–178Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Optometry and Visual ScienceCity University LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.CNRS and Faculté des Sciences du SportUniversité Montpellier 1MontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations