ArticleJournal of vision2022
Shape judgments in natural scenes: Convexity biases versus stereopsis.
Article in Journal of vision, 2022. 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.
- Orientation fields predict human perception of 3D shape from shading.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Classification images for aerial images capture visual expertise for binocular disparity and a prior for lighting from above.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining the relief of upcoming terrain is critical to locomotion over rough or uneven ground. Given the significant contribution of stereopsis to perceived surface shape, it should play a crucial role in determining the shape of ground surfaces. The aim of this series of experiments was to evaluate the relative contribution of monocular and binocular depth cues to judgments of ground relief. To accomplish this goal, we simulated a depth discrimination task using naturalistic imagery. Stimuli consisted of a stereoscopically rendered grassy terrain with a central mound or a dip with varying height. We measured thresholds for discrimination of the direction of the depth offset. To determine the relationship between relief discrimination and measures of stereopsis, we used two stereoacuity tasks performed under the same viewing conditions. To assess the impact of ambiguous two-dimensional shading cues on depth judgments in our terrain task, we manipulated the intensity of the shading (low and high). Our results show that observers reliably discriminated ground reliefs as small as 20 cm at a viewing distance of 9.1 m. As the shading was intensified, a large proportion of observers (30%) exhibited a strong convexity bias, even when stereopsis indicated a concave depression. This finding suggests that there are significant individual differences in the reliance on assumptions of surface curvature that must be considered in experimental conditions. In impoverished viewing environments with limiting depth cues, these convexity biases could persist in judgments of ground relief, especially when shading cues are highly salient.
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.