Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:40:57.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreshortening affects both uphill and downhill slope perception at far distances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2013

Helen E. Ross
Helen E. Ross*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, United Kingdom. h.e.ross@stir.ac.ukwww.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/staff-profiles/honorary-staff/helen-ross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Perceived slope varies with the viewing distance, and is consistent with the effects of foreshortening. Distant viewing makes uphill slopes appear steeper and downhill slopes flatter than does near viewing. These effects are obvious to skiers and climbers in mountainous country. They have also been measured in outdoor experiments with controlled viewing distances. There are many other sources of slope illusions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 563 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bressan, P., Garlaschelli, L. & Barracano, M. (2003) Anti-gravity hills are visual illusions. Psychological Science 14:441–49.Google Scholar
Bridgeman, B. & Hoover, M. (2008) Processing spatial layout by perception and sensorimotor interaction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(6):851–59.Google Scholar
Creem-Regehr, S. H., Mohler, B. J. & Thompson, W. B. (2004) Perceived slant is greater from far versus near distances. (Abstract). Journal of Vision 4(8):374a. doi:10.1167/4.8.374. Available at: http://journalofvision.org/4/8/374/.Google Scholar
Li, Z. & Durgin, F. H. (2009) Downhill slopes look shallower from the edge. Journal of Vision 9(11):6–15.Google Scholar
O'Shea, R. P. & Ross, H. E. (2007) Judgments of visually perceived eye level (VPEL) in outdoor scenes: Effects of slope and height. Perception 36:1168–78.Google Scholar
Proffitt, D. R., Bhalla, M., Gossweiler, R. & Midgett, J. (1995) Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2(4):409–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, H. E. (1974) Behaviour and perception in strange environments. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ross, H. E. (1994) Scaling the heights. Scottish Mountaineering Club Journal 255(185):402–10.Google Scholar
Ross, H. E. (2006) Judgements of frontal slope in nearby outdoor scenes. In: Fechner Day 2006, ed. Kornbrot, D. E., Msetfi, R. M. & MacRae, A. W., pp. 257–62. International Society for Psychophysics.Google Scholar
Ross, H. E. (2010) Perspective effects in frontal slope perception. In: Fechner Day 2010, ed. Bastianelli, A. & Vidotto, G., pp. 87–92. International Society for Psychophysics.Google Scholar
Sabra, A. I. (1989) The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I-III: On direct vision. Vol. 1, trans. Sabra, A. I., pp. 163–66. The Warburg Institute, University of London.Google Scholar
Yang, Z. & Purves, D. (2003) A statistical explanation of visual space. Nature Neuroscience 6(6):632–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed