Non-metric distance judgements are influenced by image projection geometry and field of view.

Despite its mathematical simplicity and ubiquity in imaging technology, there has long been doubt about the ability of linear perspective to best represent human visual space, especially at wide-angle fields of view under natural viewing conditions. We investigated whether changes to image geometry had an impact on participants' performance, specifically in terms of non-metric distance estimates. Our multidisciplinary research team developed a new open-source image database to study distance perception in images by systematically manipulating target distance, field of view, and image projection using non-linear natural perspective projections. The database consists of 12 outdoor scenes of a virtual three-dimensional urban environment in which a target ball is presented at increasing distance, visualised using both linear perspective and natural perspective images, rendered, respectively, with three different fields of view: 100°, 120°, and 140° horizontally. In the first experiment (N = 52), we tested the effects of linear versus natural perspective on non-metric distance judgements. In the second experiment (N = 195), we investigated the influence of contextual and previous familiarity with linear perspective, and individual differences in spatial skills on distance estimations. The results of both experiments showed that distance estimation accuracy improved in natural compared with linear perspective images, particularly at wide-angle fields of view. Moreover, undertaking a training session with only natural perspective images led to more accurate distance judgements overall. We argue that the efficacy of natural perspective may stem from its resemblance to the way objects appear under natural viewing conditions, and that this can provide insights into the phenomenological structure of visual space.

Natural Perspective: Mapping Visual Space with Art and Science.

Following its discovery in fifteenth-century Italy, linear perspective has often been hailed as the most accurate method of projecting three-dimensional visual space onto a two-dimensional picture plane. However, when we survey the history of European art it is evident that few artists fully complied with its mathematical rules, despite many of them being rigorously trained in its procedures. In this paper, we will consider how artists have actually depicted visual space, and present evidence that images created according to a "natural" perspective (NP) used by artists are judged as better representations of visual space than those created using standard linear (LP) and curvilinear fisheye (FP) projective geometries. In this study, we built a real three-dimensional scene and produced photographs of the scene in three different perspectives (NP, LP and FP). An online experiment in which we asked people to rank the perspectives in order of preference showed a clear preference for NP compared to the FP and LP. In a second experiment, participants were asked to view the real scene and rate each perspective on a range of psychological variables. Results showed that NP was the most preferred and the most effective in depicting the physical space naturally. We discuss the implications of these results and the advantages and limitations of our approach for studying the global metric and geometrical structure of visual space.

The Perceived Size and Shape of Objects in Peripheral Vision.

Little is known about how we perceive the size and shape of objects in far peripheral vision. Observations made during an artistic study of visual space suggest that objects appear smaller and compressed in the periphery compared with central vision. To test this, we conducted three experiments. In Experiment 1, we asked participants to draw how a set of peripheral discs appeared when viewed peripherally without time or eye movement constraints. In Experiment 2, we used the method of constant stimuli to measure when a briefly presented peripheral stimulus appeared bigger or smaller compared with a central fixated one. In Experiment 3, we measured how accurate participants were in discriminating shapes presented briefly in the periphery. In Experiment 1, the peripheral discs were reported as appearing significantly smaller than the central disc, and as having an elliptical or polygonal contour. In Experiment 2, participants judged the size of peripheral discs as being significantly smaller when compared with the central disc across most of the peripheral field, and in Experiment 3, participants were quite accurate in reporting the shape of the peripheral object, except in the far periphery. Our results show that objects in the visual periphery are perceived as diminished in size when presented for long and brief exposures, suggesting diminution is an intrinsic feature of the structure of the visual space. Shape distortions, however, are reported only with longer exposures.

Comparing artistic and geometrical perspective depictions of space in the visual field.

Which is the most accurate way to depict space in our visual field? Linear perspective, a form of geometrical perspective, has traditionally been regarded as the correct method of depicting visual space. But artists have often found it is limited in the angle of view it can depict; wide-angle scenes require uncomfortably close picture viewing distances or impractical degrees of enlargement to be seen properly. Other forms of geometrical perspective, such as fisheye projections, can represent wider views but typically produce pictures in which objects appear distorted. In this study we created an artistic rendering of a hemispherical visual space that encompassed the full visual field. We compared it to a number of geometrical perspective projections of the same space by asking participants to rate which best matched their visual experience. We found the artistic rendering performed significantly better than the geometrically generated projections.