Citation

Dosher BA, Landy MS, Sperling G. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1989; 15(4): 816-825.

Affiliation

Psychology Department, Columbia University, New York 10027.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1989, American Psychological Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

2531213

Abstract

Subjects saw kinetic depth displays whose shape (sphere or cylinder) was defined by luminous dots distributed randomly on the surface or in the volume of the object. Subjects rated perceived 3-D depth, rigidity, and coherence. Despite individual differences, all 3 ratings increased with the number of dots. Dots in the volume yielded ratings equal to or greater than surface dots. Each rating varied with 3 of 4 factors (shape, distribution, numerosity, and perspective), but the ratings either between trials or between conditions were often uncorrelated. Object shape affected rigidity but not depth ratings. Veridically perceived polar displays had slightly lower rigidity but higher depth ratings than parallel projection displays. (Reversed polar displays were always grossly nonrigid.) The interaction of ratings and stimulus parameters requires theories and experiments in which different KDE ratings are not treated interchangeably.

Language: en