Depth perception from successive occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occlusion of one object by another is one of the strongest and best-known pictorial cues to depth. However, it has been suggested that, in addition to a cumulative sense of depth, successive occlusions of previous objects by newly presented objects can give rise to illusory motion in depth (Engel, Remus & Sainath, 2006). Engel and colleagues (2006) found that a stacking disk stimulus, where each disk occludes a previous disk in a pile, generates a strong sensation of the stack moving towards the observer. While the perceived motion associated with this illusion has been studied, the resultant depth percept has not. To investigate if the successive introduction of occluding objects affected the perceived depth of a stacked disk stimulus, we compared two conditions. In one, participants were presented with two static piles of disks, while in the other, participants viewed one static and one stacking pile of disks. In both conditions, we presented 20 disks in one pile and a range of disks in the other using a method of constant stimuli. Participants indicated which pile appeared taller. The proportion of ‘taller’ responses were fit with cumulative normal psychometric functions from which we calculated points of subjective equality for the number of disks in each pile. We found static piles with the same number of disks appeared approximately 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, we also found just-noticeable differences varied between conditions: the task was easier when participants compared stacking vs. static piles of disks. Our results suggest that successive occlusions generate a greater sense of height than occlusion alone, and that dynamic occlusion may be an underappreciated source of depth information.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".