ANNUAL REVIEWS
Further
Quick links to online content
Ann. Rev. Psycho!. 1978. 29:31-59 Copyright © 1978 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
VISUAL PERCEPTION
.281
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1978.29:31-59. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Western Michigan University on 02/01/15. For personal use only.
Ralph Norman Haber Department of Psychology and the Center for Visual Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627
INTRODUCTION Although the years
1974
to
1977
have not seen any great revolution or break
throughs in visual perception theory and research, these years have been incredibly productive ones, overwhelmingly so for a reviewer. I will therefore single out only three general areas for detailed comment. Within these areas, I will discuss not only the last
3
years, but will attempt to formulate the state of the art, past and present,
with equal attention to what I hope the next few years will produce. My own biases will become quite evident, both in selection of topics and in the detail of discussion. The three areas I have selected are (0) the three-dimensionality of our perception,
(b) the perception of pictures and of fiat displays, and (c) the perceptual components utilized in the process of reading. My only justification for the choice of these particular topics is that they intrigue me and they are obviously important.
PERCEPTION OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL SCENES The problem of how to account for the perception of three-dimensional scenes has had a strange history. Two comprehensive theories have long ruled the roost, yet until recently few active researchers have paid much attention to either of them.
Two Theories of Space Perception The two theories are the cue theory of space perception dating back to John Locke and Bishop Berkeley, and more recently perhaps best exemplified by Ames Ittleson
(54);
and the psychophysical theory of Gibson (e.g.
29, 31).
(2) and
In essence the
cue theory states that the three-dimensional visual world is compressed onto a flat two-dimensional retinal picture. The third dimension is lost-lost in the sense that an infinite number of potential three-dimensional scenes could have given rise to any particular two-dimensional compressed picture on the retina. Thus there is never sufficient information contained in the pattern of the retinal picture to determine which three-dimensional scene accounted for that particular retinal picture. Since our perception of scenes is accurate in all three dimensions, according to this theory we have to infer (Helmholtz's term) the correct third dimension. We do this with
31
0066-4308/78/0201-0031$01.00
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1978.29:31-59. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Western Michigan University on 02/01/15. For personal use only.
32
HABER
the aid of picture cues contained in the retinal picture, glued together by our knowledge of which three-dimensional scene was most probably before our eyes at that instant in time. The literature contains a catalog of picture cues (see any introductory psychology text from the past hundred years for an up-to-date list) which are used to support the inference. The:re are also numerous studies that purport to show that we see doors as rectanguilar (even though the retinal picture contains a trapezoidal shape) because our prior experience with such scenes has always been with rectangular and never trapezoidal doors. The psychophysical theory of Gibson is (deceptively) much simpler because he starts from a fundamentally different premise. The succession of retinal images, discrete when separated by saccadic eye movemt!nts and continuous when produced by smooth pursuit movements or body motion, contains all of the information needed to construct a three-dimensional represmtation of the visual world. Gibson says that this would be obvious to theorists if th
Further
Quick links to online content
Ann. Rev. Psycho!. 1978. 29:31-59 Copyright © 1978 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
VISUAL PERCEPTION
.281
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1978.29:31-59. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Western Michigan University on 02/01/15. For personal use only.
Ralph Norman Haber Department of Psychology and the Center for Visual Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627
INTRODUCTION Although the years
1974
to
1977
have not seen any great revolution or break
throughs in visual perception theory and research, these years have been incredibly productive ones, overwhelmingly so for a reviewer. I will therefore single out only three general areas for detailed comment. Within these areas, I will discuss not only the last
3
years, but will attempt to formulate the state of the art, past and present,
with equal attention to what I hope the next few years will produce. My own biases will become quite evident, both in selection of topics and in the detail of discussion. The three areas I have selected are (0) the three-dimensionality of our perception,
(b) the perception of pictures and of fiat displays, and (c) the perceptual components utilized in the process of reading. My only justification for the choice of these particular topics is that they intrigue me and they are obviously important.
PERCEPTION OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL SCENES The problem of how to account for the perception of three-dimensional scenes has had a strange history. Two comprehensive theories have long ruled the roost, yet until recently few active researchers have paid much attention to either of them.
Two Theories of Space Perception The two theories are the cue theory of space perception dating back to John Locke and Bishop Berkeley, and more recently perhaps best exemplified by Ames Ittleson
(54);
and the psychophysical theory of Gibson (e.g.
29, 31).
(2) and
In essence the
cue theory states that the three-dimensional visual world is compressed onto a flat two-dimensional retinal picture. The third dimension is lost-lost in the sense that an infinite number of potential three-dimensional scenes could have given rise to any particular two-dimensional compressed picture on the retina. Thus there is never sufficient information contained in the pattern of the retinal picture to determine which three-dimensional scene accounted for that particular retinal picture. Since our perception of scenes is accurate in all three dimensions, according to this theory we have to infer (Helmholtz's term) the correct third dimension. We do this with
31
0066-4308/78/0201-0031$01.00
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1978.29:31-59. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Western Michigan University on 02/01/15. For personal use only.
32
HABER
the aid of picture cues contained in the retinal picture, glued together by our knowledge of which three-dimensional scene was most probably before our eyes at that instant in time. The literature contains a catalog of picture cues (see any introductory psychology text from the past hundred years for an up-to-date list) which are used to support the inference. The:re are also numerous studies that purport to show that we see doors as rectanguilar (even though the retinal picture contains a trapezoidal shape) because our prior experience with such scenes has always been with rectangular and never trapezoidal doors. The psychophysical theory of Gibson is (deceptively) much simpler because he starts from a fundamentally different premise. The succession of retinal images, discrete when separated by saccadic eye movemt!nts and continuous when produced by smooth pursuit movements or body motion, contains all of the information needed to construct a three-dimensional represmtation of the visual world. Gibson says that this would be obvious to theorists if th
