David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (4):667-685 (2011)
Two experiments were performed to explore the mechanisms of human 3D shape perception. In Experiment 1, the subjects’ performance in a shape constancy task in the presence of several cues (edges, binocular disparity, shading and texture) was tested. The results show that edges and binocular disparity, but not shading or texture, are important in 3D shape perception. Experiment 2 tested the effect of several simplicity constraints, such as symmetry and planarity on subjects’ performance in a shape constancy task. The 3D shapes were represented by edges or vertices only. The results show that performance with or without binocular disparity is at chance level, unless the 3D shape is symmetric and/or its faces are planar. In both experiments, there was a correlation between the subjects’ performance with and without binocular disparity. Our study suggests that simplicity constraints, not depth cues, play the primary role in both monocular and binocular 3D shape perception. These results are consistent with our computational model of 3D shape recovery
|Keywords||Contours Simplicity constraints Depth cues 3D shape perception|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
M. S. Landy, L. T. Maloney, E. B. Johnston & M. Young (1995). Measurement and Modeling of Depth Cue Combination: In Defense of Weak Fusion. Vision Research 35:389--412.
David Marr (1982). Vison. W. H. Freeman.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
D. J. Bennett (2012). Seeing Shape: Shape Appearances and Shape Constancy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):487-518.
David H. Sanford (1983). The Perception of Shape. In Carl Ginet & Sydney Shoemaker (eds.), Knowledge And Mind: Phil Essays. Oxford University Press.
John Schwenkler (2012). On the Matching of Seen and Felt Shape by Newly Sighted Subjects. I-Perception 3 (3):186-188.
Kirk A. Ludwig (1996). Shape Properties and Perception. In Enrique Villanueva (ed.), Philosophical Issues. Atascadero: Ridgeview. 325-350.
Charles Siewert (2006). Is the Appearance of Shape Protean? Psyche 12 (3):1-16.
D. P. Carey, H. Chris Dijkerman & A. David Milner (1998). Perception and Action in Depth. Consciousness and Cognition 7 (3):438-453.
Stevan Harnad (2005). To Cognize is to Categorize: Cognition is Categorization. In C. Lefebvre & H. Cohen (eds.), Handbook of Categorization. Elsevier.
Diane Humphrey (2002). Symmetry in Knapped Stones is Real, Not Romanced. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):409-410.
J. Herkovits & J. Faber (1978). Shape: Its Development and Regulation Capacity During Embryogenesis. Acta Biotheoretica 27 (3-4).
K. Moutoussis, G. A. Keliris, Z. Kourtzi & N. K. Logothetis (2005). A Binocular Rivalry Study of Motion Perception in the Human Brain. Vision Research 45 (17):2231-43.
Kevin Connolly (2011). Does Perception Outstrip Our Concepts in Fineness of Grain? Ratio 24 (3):243-258.
John Campbell (1996). Shape Properties, Experience of Shape and Shape Concepts. Philosophical Issues 7:351-363.
Added to index2011-08-05
Total downloads11 ( #134,768 of 1,098,400 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #284,872 of 1,098,400 )
How can I increase my downloads?