ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Picture perception reveals mental geometry of 3D scene inferences.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of reversed screen orientation versus standard orientation in bedside ultrasound on vascular access skill acquisition: a cadaver study.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Phantom Forms in Amblyopic Vision and what they reveal about the Generative Brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Perception of 3D shape integrates intuitive physics and analysis-by-synthesis.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Perceptual transitions between object rigidity and non-rigidity: Competition and cooperation among motion energy, feature tracking, and shape-based priors.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Drawing as a versatile cognitive tool.Nature reviews psychology · 2023Article
- Mental geometry of perceiving 3D size in pictures.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- Mental geometry of three-dimensional size perception.Journal of vision · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pose estimation of objects in real scenes is critically important for biological and machine visual systems, but little is known of how humans infer 3D poses from 2D retinal images. We show unexpectedly remarkable agreement in the 3D poses different observers estimate from pictures. We further show that all observers apply the same inferential rule from all viewpoints, utilizing the geometrically derived back-transform from retinal images to actual 3D scenes. Pose estimations are altered by a fronto-parallel bias, and by image distortions that appear to tilt the ground plane. We used pictures of single sticks or pairs of joined sticks taken from different camera angles. Observers viewed these from five directions, and matched the perceived pose of each stick by rotating an arrow on a horizontal touchscreen. The projection of each 3D stick to the 2D picture, and then onto the retina, is described by an invertible trigonometric expression. The inverted expression yields the back-projection for each object pose, camera elevation, and observer viewpoint. We show that a model that uses the back-projection, modulated by just two free parameters, explains 560 pose estimates per observer. By considering changes in retinal image orientations due to position and elevation of limbs, the model also explains perceived limb poses in a complex scene of two bodies lying on the ground. The inferential rules simply explain both perceptual invariance and dramatic distortions in poses of real and pictured objects, and show the benefits of incorporating projective geometry of light into mental inferences about 3D scenes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.