Perceiving depth and motion in depth from successive occlusion.

Occlusion, or interposition, is one of the strongest and best-known pictorial cues to depth. Furthermore, the successive occlusions of previous objects by newly presented objects produces an impression of increasing depth. Although the perceived motion associated with this illusion has been studied, the depth percept has not. To investigate, participants were presented with two piles of disks with one always static and the other either a static pile or a stacking pile where a new disk was added every 200 ms. We found static piles with equal number of disks appeared equal in height. In contrast, the successive presentation of disks in the stacking condition appeared to enhance the perceived height of the stack-fewer disks were needed to match the static pile. Surprisingly, participants were also more precise when comparing stacking versus static piles of disks. Reversing the stacking by removing rather than adding disks reversed the bias and degraded precision. In follow-up experiments, we used nonoverlapping static and dynamic configurations to show that the effects are not due to simple differences in perceived numerosity. In sum, our results show that successive occlusions generate a greater sense of height than occlusion alone, and we posit that dynamic occlusion may be an underappreciated source of depth information.

Three-Dimensional Motion Perception: Comparing Speed and Speed Change Discrimination for Looming Stimuli.

Judging the speed of objects moving in three dimensions is important in our everyday lives because we interact with objects in a three-dimensional world. However, speed perception has been seldom studied for motion in depth, particularly when using monocular cues such as looming. Here, we compared speed discrimination, and speed change discrimination, for looming stimuli, in order to better understand what visual information is used for these tasks. For the speed discrimination task, we manipulated the distance and duration information available, in order to investigate if participants were specifically using speed information. For speed change discrimination, total distance and duration were held constant; hence, they could not be used to successfully perform that task. For the speed change discrimination task, our data were consistent with observers not responding specifically to speed changes within an interval. Instead, they may have used alternative, arguably less optimal, strategies to complete the task. Evidence suggested that participants used a variety of cues to complete the speed discrimination task, not always solely relying on speed. Further, our data suggested that participants may have switched between cues on a trial to trial basis. We conclude that speed changes in looming stimuli were not used in a speed change discrimination task, and that naïve participants may not always exclusively use speed for speed discrimination.

Speed change discrimination for motion in depth using constant world and retinal speeds.

Motion at constant speed in the world maps into retinal motion very differently for lateral motion and motion in depth. The former is close to linear, for the latter, constant speed objects accelerate on the retina as they approach. Motion in depth is frequently studied using speeds that are constant on the retina, and are thus not consistent with real-world constant motion. Our aim here was to test whether this matters: are we more sensitive to real-world motion? We measured speed change discrimination for objects undergoing accelerating retinal motion in depth (consistent with constant real-world speed), and constant retinal motion in depth (consistent with real-world deceleration). Our stimuli contained both looming and binocular disparity cues to motion in depth. We used a speed change discrimination task to obtain thresholds for conditions with and without binocular and looming motion in depth cues. We found that speed change discrimination thresholds were similar for accelerating retinal speed and constant retinal speed and were notably poor compared to classic speed discrimination thresholds. We conclude that the ecologically valid retinal acceleration in our stimuli neither helps, nor hinders, our ability to make judgements in a speed change discrimination task.