The myth of visual “depth cues” III. “Occlusion/Interposition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Maniatis
Keyword(s):  

Occlusion” or “interposition” are typically described as “visual depth cues.” This is not a rational claim.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Maniatis

The popular idea that “shading” is a shape and depth “cue” is the result of a failure to appreciate that neither shading as a physical fact nor shading as a perceptual fact can serve to explain the process leading to visual experience, because the description “shading” does not apply to the proximal stimulation, where this process begins. Both perceived shape and perceived illumination are products of figural constraints.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Maniatis

“Visual depth cues” are conventionally invoked to explain the perception of a 3D world. They are also said to be “combined” or “integrated” for even greater effectiveness. The logical and empirical problems (Maniatis 2021a-c) that apply to the various depth cues individually and the depth cue concept generally apply to “cue integration” as well. Evidence in favor of the view is ad hoc, “models” fundamentally incomplete and contradictions never resolved.


Perception ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 707-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Owsley

Previous research has shown that infants as young as the first few months of life perceive several aspects of the three-dimensional environment. Yet we know relatively little about the visual depth information which serves as a basis for their spatial capacities. A study is reported in which a visual habituation procedure was used to examine what types of optical depth information four-month-old infants find useful in visually perceiving solid (three-dimensional) shape. Results imply that in the absence of binocular depth cues four-month-olds rely on kinetic depth information to perceive solid shape.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 850-850
Author(s):  
E. Huber ◽  
I. Fine
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (0) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Michiteru Kitazaki

Since the speed of sound is much slower than light, we sometimes hear a sound later than an accompanying light event (e.g., thunder and lightning at a far distance). However, Sugita and Suzuki (2003) reported that our brain coordinates a sound and its accompanying light to be perceived simultaneously within 20 m distance. Thus, the light accompanied with physically delayed sound is perceived simultaneously with the sound in near field. We aimed to test if this sound–light coordination occurs in a virtual-reality environment and investigate effects of binocular disparity and motion parallax. Six naive participants observed visual stimuli on a 120-inch screen in a darkroom and heard auditory stimuli from a headphone. A ball was presented in a textured corridor and its distance from the participant was varied from 3–20 m. The ball changed to be in red before or after a short (10 ms) white noise (time difference: −120, −60, −30, 0, +30, +60, +120 ms), and participants judged temporal order of the color-change and the sound. We varied visual depth cues (binocular disparity and motion parallax) in the virtual-reality environment, and measured the physical delay at which visual and auditory events were perceived simultaneously. In terms of the results, we did not find sound–light coordination without binocular disparity or motion parallax, but found it with both cues. These results suggest that binocular disparity and motion parallax are effective for sound–light coordination in virtual-reality environment, and richness of depth cues are important for the coordination.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Maniatis

Motion parallax is conventionally described as a “depth cue.” Rogers & Graham (1979) are credited with providing fairly convincing evidence for this view. Here, I argue that, just as in the case of the other so-called “depth cues,” the claim that “motion parallax” constitutes an independent factor supporting shape and depth perception is circular. Authors offering apparent demonstrations of this cue fail to properly distinguish between proximal and distal stimulus and overlook the fundamental confound of figural organization.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Maniatis

It is standard textbook practice to refer to “occlusion” as one of the so-called a depth-cues. However, perceived occluding relationships are a consequence of the perceptual organization of the retinal point stimulation – which contains no occluded surfaces. The perception of “occlusion” always involves amodal completion of areas perceived as partially occluded. Shapes, occlusions, and relative depth relationships are all descriptions of the percept. To treat one aspect of this percept as prior to other aspects is a logical fallacy linked to a failure to distinguish between the percept and the real world, and to a preference for adopting simple, pseudo-explanations of perceptual phenomena instead of tackling the difficult problems entailed in explaining perceptual organization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document