The Development of Space and Depth Perception
DEP 3115
Part 1
Information for Depth and Distance
I.
Binocular information for depth (two eyes)
A.
B.
II.
Monocular, static, or pictorial depth cues (one eye)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
III.
Convergence and divergence
Binocular disparity (or binocular parallax)
1.
Vision requires correct amount of disparity
2.
Stereopsis-- ability to see depth from disparity
Accomodation of the lens
Interposition
Lighting and shadow
Aerial perspective
Relative brightness
Linear perspective
Relative size
Familiar size
Texture gradients
Relative height (in the picture plane)
Kinetic information for depth (motion)
A.
B.
C.
Motion parallax
Optical expansion and contraction
Accretion and deletion of texture
Part 2
J.J. and E.J. Gibson's Theory of Perception
I
Introduction
II.
Traditional depth cues don't explain real 3-d perception
A.
They were developed to compensate for 2-d retinal displays
B.
Appropriate only for perceiving pictures or when normal info is not available
III.
Gibson Assumption 1: Perception of space is direct
A.
No inference needed
B.
Gibson Assumption 2: Psychologists should start by analyzing information in
the world, not on the retina
C.
Gibson Assumption 3: Observer and object motion is the norm in the real
world
IV.
Faulty assumptions of the traditional view
A.
Starts with the 2-d retinal display and thus must explain how we derive the 3rd
dimension from it.
B.
Static 2D information on the retina is ambiguous; we can't use it like a picture
1. The problem of shape and size constancy
2. Gibson Assumption 4: We don’t look at the retinal display- we look at the
world and detect invariants
3. The problem of distance perception- visual angle and image height
V.
Gibson’s Solution
A.
We use changes in the optic structure generated by motion
B.
Gibson Assumption 5: Invariants unambiguously specify spatial layout (that which
remains constant across change over time)
C.
Evidence shows that adults and infants detect invariants
VI.
Gibson: Development of space perception
A.
Infants should perceive depth on the basis of kinetic information prior to monocular
information
B.
Motion should facilitate space perception, not hinder it, because it provides
invariants
Part 3
Piaget's View of Cognitive Development and Space Perception
I.
Cognitive development theory
A.
B.
C.
D.
II.
Broad theory
Stage theory (qualitative change)
All knowledge is derived from the child's actions on objects
Knowledge of the world is a construction
Assumptions: Space perception during first 6-mo of life
A.
B.
C.
D.
III.
No perception of 3-d form
Hand teaches the eye - touch predominates over vision
Visual perception is based on the 2-d retinal display
No size or shape constancy
Other assumptions about development during the first 6 months
A.
B.
C.
D.
Infant can't yet differentiate self from other objects
Senses are not yet integrated
No ability to represent absent objects
No object permanence
Part 4
Evidence for Depth Perception in Infancy
I.
Visual cliff studies
A. Newborn animals avoid deep side
B. Two methods: direct placement vs crossing
C. Young infants perceive depth but no HR acceleration; older infants show HR
acceleration
D. Self produced locomotion underlies fear of heights (Campos)
E. 6 wks crawling experience required for cliff avoidance (Adolph)
F. Cliff avoidance is specific to posture (Adolph)
II.
Infants' use of binocular information for depth
A.
Virtual object studies (binocular disparity and convergence)
1.
2.
III.
Stereoscopic shadow caster - intangible object
Bower, Broughton & Moore (1970)
a.
6 day to 6-mo olds reached and were upset when couldn't feel the virtual
object
b.
Anticipatory hand shaping
c.
Replication with 3 ½ mo olds
d.
Conclusions—Infants detect binocular info by 3 mos; touch and vision
are integrated; inconsistent with Piaget
Infants’ use of static monocular depth cues
A.
B.
Hochberg & Brooks (1962) - picture perception required little experience
Dirks & Gibson (1977) - 5-mo-olds perceive similarity between a person and their
photo
IV.
V.
C.
Relative size: Granrud, Yonas, & Pettersen
1.
DV was reaching
2.
Ss perceived the larger of two identical objects as closer when they were
viewed monocularly but not binocularly
3.
By 5 1/2 months infants use relative size info
D.
Familiar size: Yonas, Pettersen, & Granrud (1982)
1.
Must be familiar with actual size to accurately perceive distance
2.
Larger of 2 faces seen as closer in monocular but not binocular condition by 7
months
3.
7-mo-olds use familiar size info
E.
Familiar size learning study: Granrud Hake & Yonas (1985)
1. Infants were taught the actual sizes of 2 novel objects
2. Infants perceived the object that was now larger than before as closer when
viewed monocularly but not binocularly (at 7 & not 5 mo)
3. Many abilities involved in this task
Infants' use of kinetic information for depth
A.
Accretion and deletion of texture - 5 and 7 mos (Yonas, Granrud, & Smith 1982)
B.
Looming studies--tests use of optical (radial) expansion as information for
impending collision
1.
Integrated avoidance response to looming and not to zooming
2.
Ball & Tronick (1971)- avoidance to hit, not miss trials, and approach but not
retreat at 2-11 wks
3.
Controversy over interpretation of results; Yonas measured blinking
4.
Conclusion- infants use kinetic information (optical expansion) to perceive
depth by 3 wks (Nanez & Yonas)
Summary--the use of kinetic information develops first (by 1 mo), binocular next ( by 3½
mos), and monocular last (5 ½ -7mos)
Part 5
Evaluating Gibson and Piaget’s Theories of Depth Perception in Light of
Current Data
I.
Developmental progression (kinetic binocular monocular) supports Gibson’s view
A. Kinetic information is fundamental and provides basis for invariant detection
II. Other studies demonstrate that motion facilitates perception and support Gibson view
A. Infants use motion to perceive shape more accurately (Owsely)
B. Infants use motion to perceive shape of occluded objects (Kellman & Spelke)
C. Infants perceive figural coherence in point light displays of walkers
D. Infants show visually guided reaching (VonHofsten)
III. Early sensitivity to motion information supports Gibson’s view and is inconsistent
with Piaget