Effects of symmetry, texture, and monocular viewing on geographical slant estimation.

Hills often appear to be steeper than they are. The unusual magnitude of this error has prompted extensive experimentation. The judgment mode, such as verbal vs. action-based measures, the state of the observer - whether exhausted or well rested - all can influence perceived geographical slant. We hold that slant perception is inherently shaky as soon as the slope in question is no longer palpable, that is if it is outside our personal space. To make this point, we have added symmetry, texture, and depression to the list of factors that might modulate slant perception. When the frontal slope of a hill is to be judged, it appears steeper when the side slopes are steep. We have used model hills close to the subject. Their slopes were judged most accurately when binocular stereoscopic vision was permitted. When closing one eye, observers grossly overestimated all slopes. This error was larger for verbal judgments than for judgments made by indicating the slope with their forearm, however, the pattern of the overestimation remained unchanged. Surface texture mattered surprisingly little. Depressed subjects produced exactly the same results as healthy controls. We conclude that in action space and in vista space (outside immediate personal space), slopes are overestimated because the visual system attempts to turn the 2D retinal stimulus into a regular 3D object, akin to the erection tendency (Aufrichtungstendenz) found in diminished or 2D-stimuli. This tendency is inherently instable and can be swayed by a large number of variables.

The vista paradox: Framing or contrast?

The vista paradox is the illusion in which an object seen through a window appears to shrink in apparent size (and appears farther away) as the observer approaches the window. Paradoxically, the distal object appears smaller as its visual angle increases. We investigated the effect in four experiments varying object size, distance, point of fixation, and texture of the frame and of the object. In the first experiment, we tried to confirm the illusion and to test the robustness of the phenomenon. In the second experiment, we manipulated where subjects fixated (on the frame or on the object) as well as the texture of the object and the frame. Fixation was essential for the illusion: fixating the frame led to an apparent shrinking of the object, whereas fixation on the object did not. Texture of the frame intensified the apparent shrinking of the object. In a third experiment, we separated the point of fixation from the frame in a between-subjects design. Finally, in Experiment 4, we showed that the paradox does not require a frame, but it requires a fixation on a location different from the object. That is, the window or frame is dispensable for the vista paradox, but fixation is critical.

Distance estimation in vista space.

Although distance estimation has been extensively studied in the laboratory, our ability to judge large distances in the field is not well researched. We challenge the notion that large distances are uniformly underestimated. We presented different targets to observers at distances ranging from 25 to 500 m to obtain egocentric distance judgments in natural environments. Three experiments showed that observers tend to underestimate distances below 75 m in a large open field, whereas they overestimate farther distances. Both the eye height of the observer and the size of the target also influenced distance estimation. We conclude that the notion of a uniform vista space has to be reconceived.