Abstract
Motion parallax has been shown to be an effective and unamhiguous:source of information about the structure of three-dimensional (3-D) surfaces, both when an observer makes lateral movementswith respect to a stationary surface and when the surface translates with respect to a stationary observer (Rogers & Graham, 1979). When the same pattern of relative motions among parts of the simulated surface is presented to a stationary observer on an unmoving monitor, the perceived corrugations are unstable with respect to the direction of the peaks and troughs. The lack of ambiguity in the original demonstrations could be due to the presence of (1) non-visual information (proprioceptive and vestibular signals) produced when the observer moves or tracks a moving surface, andlor (2) additional optic flow information available in the whole array. To distinguish between these two possibilities, we measured perceived ambiguity in simulated 3-D surfaces in situations where either nonvisual information or one of four kinds of visual information was present. Both visual and nonvisual information were effective in disambiguating the direction of depth within the simulated surface. Real perspective shape transformations affecting the elements of the display were most effective in disambiguating the display.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Braunstein, M. L. (1966). Sensitivity of the observer to transformations of the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology,72, 683–687.
Braunstein, M. L. (1977). Perceived direction of rotation of simulated three-dimensional patterns.Perception & Psychophysics,21, 553–557.
Braunstein, M. L., &Andersen, G. J. (1981). Velocity gradients and relative depth perception.Perception & Psychophysics,29, 145–155.
Braunstein, M. L., &Tittle, I. S. (1988). The observer-relative velocity field as the basis for effective motion parallax.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Peifonnance,14, 582–590.
Gibson, E. J., Gibson, J. J., Smith, O. W., &Flock, H. (1959). MotiOn parallax as a determinant of perceived depth.Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 40–51.
Graham, M., &Rogers, B. (1982). Simultaneous and successive contrast effects in the perception of depth from motion parallax and stereoscopic information.Perception,11, 247–262.
Julesz, B. (1960). Binocular depth perception of computer generated patterns.Bell System Technology Journal,39, 1126–1162.
Julesz, B. (1971).Foundations of cyclopean perception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers, B. J., &Graham, M. (1979). Motion parallax as an independent cue for depth perception.Perception,8, 123–134.
Rogers, B. J., &Graham, M. (1982). Similarities between motion parallax and stereopsis in human depth perception.Vision Research,22, 261–270.
Rogers, B. J., &Graham, M. E. (1983). Anisotropies in the perception of three-dimensional surfaces.Science,221, 1409–1411.
Wallach, H., &O’Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 205–217.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rogers, S., Rogers, B.J. Visual and nonvisual information disambiguate surfaces specified by motion parallax. Perception & Psychophysics 52, 446–452 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206704
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206704