Abstract:Judgments of the orientations of 2D lines show systematic biases that can be described as exaggerating deviations from horizontal. These biases are not due to numeric estimation biases. An orientation of about 37° from horizontal is judged to be equidistant from horizontal and vertical. The same orientation is judged to be 45° from horizontal and 45° from vertical. One hypothesis concerning this distortion is an experience-based anisotropy in the distribution of orientation sensitive cells in visual cortex. An alternative view is that these biases are intrinsic to the encoding of spatial orientation. To tease apart these two possibilities we oriented observers at 45° from vertical and asked them to do two kinds of tasks. One task was a psychometric measurement of perceived vertical or horizontal using a forced choice method. Judgments of visual stimuli, presented in a circular aperture that removed any external visual references, were made either with respect to an egocentric (bodily) or exocentric (gravitational) reference frame. Over 150 participants were tested. Both within and between subjects, variability was much less for judgments made with respect to the exocentric (perceived gravitational) reference frame. Similarly, when required to make numeric estimates of orientation with respect to the two types of reference frame, estimates with respect to perceived gravitational frames exhibited the standard bias exaggerating deviations from horizontal. Estimates with respect to bodily frames did not. These findings are consistent with the precedence of gravitational reference frames in visual experience and imply that 2D orientation asymmetries between horizontal and vertical are not caused simply by biases in the distribution of early cortical orientation analyzers. Precision was greatest when observers were upright so that gravitational and bodily vertical were aligned, but for tilted observers, judgments made with respect to gravitational reference frames were most similar to judgments made upright. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

Angular Expansion Theory Turned on Its Side

Perceived Azimuth Direction is Exaggerated: Converging Evidence from Explicit and Implicit Measures

Two Distinct Angular Perceptual Variables Account for the Dissociation Between Egocentric and Exocentric Distance Perception

Large Perceptual Distortions of Locomotor Action Space Occur in Ground-Based Coordinates: Angular Expansion and the Large-Scale Horizontal-Vertical Illusion.

A Comparison of Two Theories of Perceived Distance on the Ground Plane: the Angular Expansion Hypothesis and the Intrinsic Bias Hypothesis.

Perceptual Scale Expansion: an Efficient Angular Coding Strategy for Locomotor Space.

Depth Compression Based on Mis-Scaling of Binocular Disparity May Contribute to Angular Expansion in Perceived Optical Slant.

Why Do Things Seem Closer Than They Are?

Does Perceived Angular Declination Contribute to Perceived Optical Slant on Level Ground?

ANGULAR OVERESTIMATION ENHANCES CODING PRECISION: SCALE EXPANSION THEORY IN SLANT PERCEPTION

Exocentric Reference Frames Determine 2D Orientation Bias

Perceptual Bias in 2D Orientation is Also Present in Obliquely-Viewed Planes

Slant Perception in Near Space is Categorically Biased: Evidence for a Vertical Tendency

Do Children Demonstrate Biases in Space Perception Consistent with Angular Expansion?

Perceived Aspect Ratio on Tilted Surfaces Supports the Hypothesis That Perceived Slant Approximates a Scaled Sine Function of Actual Slant

On the anisotropy of perceived ground extents and the interpretation of walked distance as a measure of perception.

The underestimation of egocentric distance: evidence from frontal matching tasks

Which Way is Up in the Horizontal-Vertical Illusion?

Perceived slant of binocularly viewed large-scale surfaces: a common model from explicit and implicit measures.

Body-centric and World-Centric Components of the Large-Scale Horizontal-Vertical Illusion.

The Perception of 2D Orientation is Categorically Biased