The Effects of Changing Projection Geometry on Perception of 3D Objects on and Around Tabletops
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Displaying 3D objects on horizontal displays can cause problems in the way that the virtual scene is presented on the 2D surface; inappropriate choices in how 3D is represented can lead to distorted images and incorrect object interpretations. We present four experiments that test 3D perception. We varied projection geometry in three ways: type of projection (perspective/parallel), separation between the observer's point of view and the projection's center (discrepancy), and the presence of motion parallax (with/without parallax). Projection geometry had strong effects different for each task. Reducing discrepancy is desirable for orientation judgments, but not for object recognition or internal angle judgments. Using a fixed center of projection above the table reduces error and improves accuracy in most tasks. The results have far-reaching implications for the design of 3D views on tables, in particular, for multi-user applications where projections that appear correct for one person will not be perceived correctly by another.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it