Abstract
Surface slant (the angle between the line of sight and the surface normal) is an important psychophysical variable. However, slant angle captures only one of the two degrees of freedom of surface orientation, the other being thedirection of slant. Slant direction, measured in the image plane, coincides with the direction of the gradient of distance from viewer to surface and, equivalently, with the direction the surface normal would point if projected onto the image plane. Since slant direction may be quantified by the tilt of the projected normal (which ranges over 360 deg in the frontal plane), it is referred to here assurface tilt. (Note that slant angle is measured perpendicular to the image plane, whereas tilt angle is measured in the image plane.) Compared with slant angle’s popularity as a psychophysical variable, the attention paid to surface tilt seems undeservedly scant. Experiments that demonstrate a technique for measuring apparent surface tilt are reported. The experimental stimuli were oblique crosses and parallelograms, which suggest oriented planes in 3-D. The apparent tilt of the plane might be probed by orienting a needle in 3-D so as to appear normal, projecting the normal onto the image plane, and measuring its direction (e.g., relative to the horizontal). It is shown to be preferable, however, to merely rotate a line segment in 2-D, superimposed on the display, until it appears normal to the perceived surface. The apparent surface tilt recorded in these experiments corresponded closely to that predicted by assuming the 3-D configurations consist of equal-length lines and perpendicular intersections.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Note
Purdy, W. C.Thehypothesis of psychological correspondence in spaceperception (No. R60ELCS6). Schenectady, N.Y: General Electric Technical Information Series, 1960.
References
Attneave, F. Representation of physical space. In A. W. Melton & E. Martin (Eds.),Coding processes in human memory. New York: Wiley, 1972.
Attneave, F., &Frost, R. The determination of perceived tridimensional orientation by minimum criteria.Perception & Psychophysics, 1969,6, 391–396.
Braunstein, M., &Payne, H. W. Perspective and form ratio as determinants of relative slant judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,81, 584–590.
Flock, H. R. A possible optical basis for monocular slant perception.Psychological Review, 1964,71, 380–391.
Flock, H. R. Optical texture and linear perspective as stimuli for slant perception.Psychological Review, 1965,72, 505–514.
Flock, H. R., &Moscatelli, A. Variables of surface texture and accuracy of space perceptions.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964,19, 327–334.
Freeman, R. B. The effect of size on visual slant.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,71, 96–103.
Gibson, J. J.The perception of the visible world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950. (a)
Gibson, J. J. The perception of visible surfaces.American Journal of Psychology, 1950,63, 367–384. (b)
Hoffman, D. D. Inferring local surface orientation from motion fields.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1982,71, 888–892.
Horn, B. K. P. Obtaining shape from shading information. In P. H. Winston (Bd.),The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Huffman, D. A. Impossible objects as nonsense sentences.Machine Intelligence, 1971,6, 295–323.
Koenderink, J. J., &Van Doorn, A. J. Local structure of movement parallax of the plane.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1976,66, 717–723.
Kraft, A. L., &Winnick, W. A. The effect of pattern and texture gradient on slant and shape judgments.Perception & Psychophysics, 1967,2, 141–147.
Luckiesh, M.Visual illusions: Their causes, characteristics and applications. New York: Dover, 1965.
Mackworth, A. K. Interpreting pictures of polyhedral scenes.ArtifjcialIntelligence, 1973,4, 121–137.
Marr, D. C.Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman, 1982.
Olson, R. K. Slant judgments from static and rotating trapezoids correspond to rules of perspective geometry.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,15, 509–516.
Perkins, D. N. Visual discrimination between rectangular and nonrectangular parallelepipeds.Perception & Psychophysics, 1972,11, 396–400.
Prazdny, K. Egomotion and relative depth map from optical flow.Biological Cybernetics, 1980,36, 87–102.
Robinson, J. O.The psychology of visual illusion. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1972.
Stevens, K. A. Representing and analyzing surface orientation. In P. H. Winston & R. H. Brown (Eds.),Artificial Intelligence An MIT perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979.
Stevens, K. A. The information content of texture gradients.Biological Cybernetics, 1981,41, 95–105. (a)
Stevens, K. A. The visual interpretation of surface contours.Artificial Intelligence, 1981,17, 47–73. (b)
Stevens, K. A. Slant-tilt: The visual encoding of surface orientation.Biological Cybernetics, 1982, in press.
Witkin, A. P. Estimating shape from texture.Artificial Intelligence, 1981,17, 17–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was carried out at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, support for which is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense under Office of Naval Research Contract NOOOl4-75-C-0643 and in part by National Science Foundation Grant MCS77-Q7569.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stevens, K.A. Surface tilt (the direction of slant): A neglected psychophysical variable. Perception & Psychophysics 33, 241–250 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202860
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202860