Depth propagation and surface construction in 3-D vision.

In stereo vision, regions with ambiguous or unspecified disparity can acquire perceived depth from unambiguous regions. This has been called stereo capture, depth interpolation or surface completion. We studied some striking induced depth effects suggesting that depth interpolation and surface completion are distinct stages of visual processing. An inducing texture (2-D Gaussian noise) had sinusoidal modulation of disparity, creating a smooth horizontal corrugation. The central region of this surface was replaced by various test patterns whose perceived corrugation was measured. When the test image was horizontal 1-D noise, shown to one eye or to both eyes without disparity, it appeared corrugated in much the same way as the disparity-modulated (DM) flanking regions. But when the test image was 2-D noise, or vertical 1-D noise, little or no depth was induced. This suggests that horizontal orientation was a key factor. For a horizontal sine-wave luminance grating, strong depth was induced, but for a square-wave grating, depth was induced only when its edges were aligned with the peaks and troughs of the DM flanking surface. These and related results suggest that disparity (or local depth) propagates along horizontal 1-D features, and then a 3-D surface is constructed from the depth samples acquired. The shape of the constructed surface can be different from the inducer, and so surface construction appears to operate on the results of a more local depth propagation process.

The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles).

Although the Ebbinghaus illusion is commonly used as an example of a simple size-contrast effect, previous studies have emphasised its complexity by identifying many factors that potentially influence the magnitude of the illusion. Here, in a series of three experiments, we attempt to simplify this complexity. In each trial, subjects saw a display comprising, on one side, a target stimulus surrounded by inducers and, on the other, an isolated probe stimulus. Their task was to indicate whether the probe appeared larger or smaller than the target. Probe size was adjusted with a one-up, one-down staircase procedure to find the point of subjective equality between probe and target. From these experiments, we argue that the apparent effects of inducer size are often confounded by the relative completeness of the inducing surround and that factors such as the similarity of the inducers and target are secondary. We suggest a simple model that can explain most of the data in terms of just two primary and independent factors: the relative size of the inducers and target, and the distance between the inducers and the target. The balance between these two factors determines whether the size of the target is underestimated or overestimated.