Surface Attitude Judgements in synthetic textures and real-world images: a method evaluation
Surface Attitude Judgements in synthetic textures and real-world images: a method evaluation
复制标题
合成纹理和真实世界图像中的表面姿态判断：方法评估
DOI：
10.1167/jov.22.14.4164
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Qian S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Qian S
Objective.我们对表面态度感知的理解主要来自于使用合成刺激和量规图形探针的研究。在这里，我们评估这些研究是否推广到现实世界的场景，以及是否误解的计量数字可能会导致偏见，在这些resultsMethodsStimuli被视为单眼通过一个12圆孔。我们探索了两类刺激和两种反应模式。刺激：1）用合成纹理绘制的平面表面; 2）来自SYNS数据集的真实世界补丁（亚当斯等人，2016年）。响应模式：1）仪表图; 2）带有单独倾斜和倾斜指示器的2D表盘。此外，我们测试的合成纹理双眼透视和视差;和比较2D和3D的仪表图和拨号methods.ResultsSlant：观察员作出有意义的判断，合成和现实世界的表面倾斜。对于合成纹理，两种方法的RMS误差和灵敏度（JND）相似。虽然表盘法产生的增益大于1，但量规图法产生的增益小于1，并且存在高估倾斜度的偏差，这可能是由于低估了量规图本身的倾斜度。对于现实世界的表面，相反，这两种反应模式产生了负面的偏见：观察者低估了倾斜。对于合成纹理，两种方法的倾斜判断都是精确和准确的。然而，观察员无法执行的任务，为现实世界的表面，而不是报告倾斜紧密聚集在周围的主要directions.ConclusionWhile这两种规格和拨号方法工作良好的倾斜判断合成表面，倾斜判断这两种方法产生强烈的偏见，它仍然不清楚这是否反映了偏见的表面，偏见的方法，或两者兼而有之。人类似乎无法对自然表面的自我中心倾斜做出合理的判断。
Objective. Our understanding of surface attitude perception derives largely from studies using synthetic stimuli and gauge figure probes. Here we assess whether these studies generalize to real-world scenes and whether misperception of the gauge figure could lead to bias in these results.MethodsStimuli were viewed monocularly through a 12 circular aperture. We explored two classes of stimuli and two modes of response. Stimuli: 1) Planar surfaces painted with synthetic textures; 2) Real-world patches from the SYNS dataset (Adams et al., 2016). Response mode: 1) gauge figure; 2) 2D dial with separate slant and tilt indicators. In addition we tested the synthetic textures binocularly with perspective only and with disparity; and compared 2D and 3D gauge figure and dial methods.ResultsSlant: Observers made meaningful judgements of slant for both synthetic and real-world surfaces. For synthetic textures, RMS error and sensitivity (JND) were similar for the two methods. While the dial method produced a gain greater than 1, the gauge figure method produced a gain less than 1 and was biased to overestimate slant, possibly due to underestimation of the slant of the gauge figure itself. For real-world surfaces, in contrast, both response modes produced a negative bias: observers underestimated slant. Tilt: For synthetic textures, tilt judgements were precise and accurate for both methods. However, observers were unable to perform the task for real-world surfaces, instead reporting tilts tightly clustered around the cardinal directions.ConclusionWhile both gauge and dial methods work well for tilt judgements of synthetic surfaces, for slant judgements both methods generate strong biases, and it remains unclear whether this reflects biased perception of the surfaces, biases in the method, or both. Humans appear to be unable to make reasonable judgements of egocentric tilt for natural surfaces.