ReviewJournal of vision2024
Toward a theory of perspective perception in pictures.
Review in Journal of vision, 2024. 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.
- Human-like monocular depth biases in deep neural networks.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Viewers perceive shape in pictures according to per-fixation perspective.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reviews projection models and their perception in realistic pictures, and proposes hypotheses for three-dimensional (3D) shape and space perception in pictures. In these hypotheses, eye fixations, and foveal vision play a central role. Many past theories and experimental studies focus solely on linear perspective. Yet, these theories fail to explain many important perceptual phenomena, including the effectiveness of nonlinear projections. Indeed, few classical paintings strictly obey linear perspective, nor do the best distortion-avoidance techniques for wide-angle computational photography. The hypotheses here employ a two-stage model for 3D human vision. When viewing a picture, the first stage perceives 3D shape for the current gaze. Each fixation has its own perspective projection, but, owing to the nature of foveal and peripheral vision, shape information is obtained primarily for a small region of the picture around the fixation. As a viewer moves their eyes, the second stage continually integrates some of the per-gaze information into an overall interpretation of a picture. The interpretation need not be geometrically stable or consistent over time. It is argued that this framework could explain many disparate pictorial phenomena, including different projection styles throughout art history and computational photography, while being consistent with the constraints of human 3D vision. The paper reviews open questions and suggests new studies to explore these hypotheses.
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.