ArticleJournal of vision2020
Mental geometry of perceiving 3D size in pictures.
Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anisotropy of object nonrigidity: High-level perceptual consequences of cortical anisotropy.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Perceptual transitions between object rigidity and non-rigidity: Competition and cooperation among motion energy, feature tracking, and shape-based priors.Journal of vision · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We show that the classical problem of three-dimensional (3D) size perception in obliquely viewed pictures can be understood by comparing human performance to the optimal geometric solution. A photograph seen from the camera position, can form the same retinal projection as the physical 3D scene, but retinal projections of sizes and shapes are distorted in oblique viewing. For real scenes, we previously showed that size and shape inconstancy result despite observers using the correct geometric back-transform, because some retinal images evoke misestimates of object slant or viewing elevation. Now, we examine how observers estimate 3D sizes in oblique views of pictures of objects lying on the ground in different poses. Compared to estimates for real scenes, in oblique views of pictures, sizes were seriously underestimated for objects at frontoparallel poses, but there was almost no change for objects perceived as pointing toward the viewer. The inverse of the function relating projected length to pose, camera elevation and viewing azimuth, gives the optimal correction factor for inferring correct 3D lengths if the elevation and azimuth are estimated accurately. Empirical correction functions had similar shapes to optimal, but lower amplitude. Measurements revealed that observers systematically underestimated viewing azimuth, similar to the frontoparallel bias for object pose perception. A model that adds underestimation of viewing azimuth to the geometrical back-transform, provided good fits to estimated 3D lengths from oblique views. These results add to accumulating evidence that observers use internalized projective geometry to perceive sizes, shapes, and poses in 3D scenes and their pictures.
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.