Humans can obtain an unambiguous perception of depth and 3-dimensionality with 1 eye or when viewing a pictorial image of a 3-dimensional scene. However, the perception of depth when viewing a real scene with both eyes is qualitatively different: There is a vivid impression of tangible solid form and immersive negative space. This perceptual phenomenon, referred to as "stereopsis," has been among the central puzzles of perception since the time of da Vinci. After Wheatstone's invention of the stereoscope in 1838, stereopsis has conventionally been explained as a byproduct of binocular vision or visual parallax. However, this explanation is challenged by the observation that the impression of stereopsis can be induced in single pictures under monocular viewing. Here I propose an alternative hypothesis that stereopsis is a qualitative visual experience related to the perception of egocentric spatial scale. Specifically, the primary phenomenal characteristic of stereopsis (the impression of "real" separation in depth) is proposed to be linked to the precision with which egocentrically scaled depth (absolute depth) is derived. Since conscious awareness of this precision could help guide the planning of motor action, the hypothesis provides a functional account for the important secondary phenomenal characteristics associated with stereopsis: the impression of interactability and realness. By linking stereopsis to a generic perceptual attribute, rather than a specific cue, it provides a potentially more unified account of the variation of stereopsis in real scenes and pictures and a basis for understanding why we can perceive depth in pictures despite conflicting visual signals.

/pdf/toward-a-new-theory-of-stereopsis-4r7do7hgz3.pdf

Toward a new theory of stereopsis

Our tactual perception of roughness is independent of the manner in which we touch the surface. A brick surface feels rough no matter how slowly or how rapidly we move our fingers, despite the fluctuating sensory inputs that are transmitted to the finger. Current theories of roughness perception rely solely on inputs from the cutaneous afferents, which are highly affected by scan velocity and force. The question then is: how is roughness constancy achieved? To this end, we characterized the subject's perceived roughness in six scanning conditions. These included two modes of touch: direct touch, where the finger is in contact with the surface, and indirect touch, where the surface is scanned with a hand-held probe; and three scanning modes: active (moving the hand across a stationary surface), passive (moving the surface across a stationary hand), and pseudo-passive (subject's hand is moved by the experimenter across a stationary surface). Here, we show that roughness constancy is preserved during active but not passive scanning, indicating that the hand movement is necessary for roughness constancy in both direct and indirect touch. Roughness constancy is also preserved during pseudo-passive scanning, which stresses the importance of proprioceptive input. The results show that cutaneous input provides the signals necessary for roughness perception and that proprioceptive input resulting from hand movement—rather than a motor efference copy—is necessary to achieve roughness constancy. These findings have important implications in providing realistic sensory feedback for prosthetic-hand users.

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/31/48/17603.full.pdf

Perceptual Constancy of Texture Roughness in the Tactile System

Humans can perceive depth when viewing with one eye, and even when viewing a two-dimensional picture of a three-dimensional scene. However, viewing a real scene with both eyes produces a more compelling three-dimensional experience of immersive space and tangible solid objects. A widely held belief is that this qualitative visual phenomenon (stereopsis) is a by-product of binocular vision. In the research reported here, we empirically established, for the first time, the qualitative characteristics associated with stereopsis to show that they can occur for static two-dimensional pictures without binocular vision. Critically, we show that stereopsis is a measurable qualitative attribute and that its induction while viewing pictures is not consistent with standard explanations based on depth-cue conflict or the perception of greater depth magnitude. These results challenge the conventional understanding of the underlying cause, variation, and functional role of stereopsis.

Seeing in 3-D With Just One Eye Stereopsis Without Binocular Vision

In our daily life experience, the angular size of an object correlates with its distance from the observer, provided that the physical size of the object remains constant. In this work, we investigated depth perception in action space (i.e., beyond the arm reach), while keeping the angular size of the target object constant. This was achieved by increasing the physical size of the target object as its distance to the observer increased. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a similar protocol has been tested in action space, for distances to the observer ranging from 1.4–2.4 m. We replicated the task in virtual and real environments and we found that the performance was significantly different between the two environments. In the real environment, all participants perceived the depth of the target object precisely. Whereas, in virtual reality (VR) the responses were significantly less precise, although, still above chance level in 16 of the 20 observers. The difference in the discriminability of the stimuli was likely due to different contributions of the convergence and the accommodation cues in the two environments. The values of Weber fractions estimated in our study were compared to those reported in previous studies in peripersonal and action space.

/pdf/depth-discrimination-of-constant-angular-size-stimuli-in-4g6dkx4vxu.pdf

Depth discrimination of constant angular size stimuli in action space: role of accommodation and convergence cues.

This essay aims to sharpen debates on the pros and cons of historical epistemology, which is now understood as a novel approach to the study of knowledge, by comparing it with the history of epistemology as traditionally pursued by philosophers The many versions of both approaches are not always easily discernable Yet, a reasoned comparison of certain versions can and should be made In the first section of this article, I argue that the most interesting difference involves neither the subject matter nor goal, but the methods used by the two approaches In the second section, I ask which of the two approaches or methods is more promising given that both historical epistemologists and historians of epistemology claim to contribute to epistemology simpliciter Using traditional problems concerning the epistemic role of perception, I argue that the historical epistemologies of Wartofsky and Daston and Galison fail to show that studying practices of perception is philosophically significant Standard methods from the history of epistemology are more promising, as I show by means of reconstructing arguments in a debate about the relation between perception and judgment in psychological research on the famous moon illusion

Historical Epistemology or History of Epistemology? The Case of the Relation Between Perception and Judgment

The relationship between distance and size perception is unclear because of conflicting results of tests investigating the size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH), according to which perceived size is proportional to perceived distance. We propose that response bias with regard to measures of perceived distance is at the root of the conflict. Rather than employ the usual method of magnitude estimation, the bias-free two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) method was used to determine the precision (1/sigma) of discriminating depth at different distances. The results led us to define perceptual distance as a bias free power function of physical distance, with an exponent of approximately 0.5. Similar measures involving size differences among stimuli of equal angular size yield the same power function of distance. In addition, size discrimination is noisier than depth discrimination, suggesting that distance information is processed prior to angular size. Size constancy implies that the perceived size is proportional to perceptual distance. Moreover, given a constant relative disparity, depth constancy implies that perceived depth is proportional to the square of perceptual distance. However, the function relating the uncertainties of depth and of size discrimination to distance is the same. Hence, depth and size constancy may be accounted for by the same underlying law.

Perceptual distance and the constancy of size and stereoscopic depth.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Sunhee Bai

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Perceptual distance and the constancy of size and stereoscopic depth.