268 Index. Ecological validity, 44 45, 73, 90, , 233. See also Brunswick; Gibson

Transcription

1 Index Accommodation cue, 44, 57 Accuracy of shape perception, 16 18, 23, 25 of slant perception, 23, 25 Affine. See Transformation; Invariants Afterimage, 10, 36 Alhazen, See also Taking into account Associations and perception, 13 16, 29, 56, 170. See also Empiricism; Berkeley; Locke Ambiguity, 3, 9, 166. See also Millstones of shape, 6 8, 19 27, 167, 201, 215, Ames, A., 49 50, 62. See also Empiricism; Perceptual learning; Transactional psychology Attneave, F. 40, 46 50, 54 56, 60, 111, 127. See also Information theory; Slant Ballard, D. H., 155, 215 Barlow, H. B., 60. See also Information theory Bayesian approach, 126, 179, See also Inverse problem; Regularization approach Bennett, B. M., 242n2 Berkeley, G., 6, 13 15, 60, 68. See also Empiricism Biederman, I. See also Milestones; Recognition by components figure ground organization, 129, 132 shape constancy, 120, 131, simplicity constraints, 140, 153, 164, 166 theory, 87, , 152 uniqueness of shape, 90, 115, 135 Binford, T. O., See also Generalized cones Binocular, 10, See also Millstones depth perception, 46, 81 82, 119 disparity, 21, 34 35, 44, 49, 57, 90, 100, 115 disparity vs. constraints, 109, , shape perception, 17 18, 23 25, 65 66, 83, 119, surface perception, 91, 94, 116, 118, 126 Blum, H., 31, 148. See also Symmetry, translational Boring, E. G., 23, 235n3, 240n9 Brady, J. M., 91, 224 Brain currents model, 31, 33, 55. See also Köhler, W. Brain forces, 32 33, 36, 237n4. See also Koffka; Simplicity Brill, M., 239n5

2 268 Index Bruner, J. S., 61 62, 235n3. See also High-level processes; New Look Brunswik, E., 24, 69, 90, 115, 233. See also Ecological validity Bülthoff, H. H., 123, 137, 171, 233, 237n7 Calibrated camera. See Camera, calibrated Camera, 74, 113, 129, 150, , , See also Millstones; Milestones calibrated, 24, 94 95, 143, 198, See also Image formation; Perspective projection uncalibrated, 106, , 213, , 239n7. See also Transformation, projective Canonical views, 160. See also Palmer Chan, M. W., 55, 140, 143, 222, See also Shape, constancy; Shape, constraints; Shape, reconstruction Chater, N., 225. See also Likelihood ; Simplicity Closure, 30, 111, 148. See also Constraints Cognitive. See also Milestones; Millstones psychology, 55, 60, 64, 68 69, 126 Revolution, 27, 37, 39 40, 46, 60, , 115 Compactness constraint, 242n6. See also Constraints; Shape, reconstruction; Simplicity 3D, 33, 49, 53, , 159, 162, , 183 2D, 109, 224, 226 Complexity of shape. See Shape, complexity Computational model, 71, 73, 78, , , 174, 183 Constancy, 8, 17, 24, 166. See also Taking into account explanation hypothesis, 29, 236n10 of color, 10 of lightness, 9 of shape (see Shape, constancy) of size, 9 11, 17, 166 Constraints. See Compactness constraint; Rectangularity constraint; Regularization approach; Smoothness constraint; Simplicity ; Symmetry constraint Context, role in perceptual constancy, 9, 21 22, 26, 166. See also Millstones Contour. See Shape, 2D; Shape, retinal Cross ratio. See Invariants, projective Cybernetics, Descartes, R., 10 13, 15, 68 Depth cues, See also 2.5D sketch; Binocular, disparity; Kinetic depth effect; Simplicity ; Surfaces definition, 87 3D shape perception, 21 22, 44, 54 57, 66, 82 83, 119 2D shape perception, 17 18, 22 23, Dewey, J., 99 Dickinson, S., , 140, 243n5. See also Milestones, Shape, 3D; Shape parts; Shape recognition Direct perception, 80, 96, See also Fechner; Gibson; Inverse problem Direct problem. See Forward problem; Inverse problem Disparity. See Binocular, disparity Ecological validity, 44 45, 73, 90, , 233. See also Brunswick; Gibson

3 Index 269 Edelman, S., 137, 139, , 233, 237n7. See also Multiple views theory Ehrenfels, C. von, 29, 240n9. See also Gestalt quality Ellipse. See Ambiguity of shape Empiricism, 13, See also Millstones; Perceptual learning; Slant, taking into account; Unconscious conclusion; Wallach Epstein, W., 20, 225, 235n1, 235n3. See also Slant, taking into account Erlanger Programm, 203, 212. See also Invariants; Klein; Transformation Euclidean. See Invariants; Transformation Explanation. See Computational model Eyeball, 53, 195, 202. See also Camera, calibrated Eye movements and shape perception, 15, 61, 99. See also Festinger; Hebb; Motor theory Familiarity, 18, 21, 30, 62, 79, 149, 183. See also Shape, familiarity Farah, M. J., 115, See also Shape, constancy Faugeras, O., 239n4, 240n10. See also Camera; Invariants Fechner, G., 80, 175. See also Direct perception; Forward problem Fermat, 31. See also Simplicity Festinger, L., 238n8. See also Eye movements; Motor theory Figural after-effects, 173. See also Shape, illusions; Wallach Figure ground organization, 4, 27, 85, 91, 94, , See also Gestalt psychology; Milestones; Perceptual organization Fixed-center directional perspective, See also Image formation; Pizlo, Z. Forward problem , 175,180. See also Inverse problem Francis, G., 94, 121. See also Binocular, disparity; Shape constraints Generalized cones (cylinders, sweeps) shape parts, , 241n2 (see also Biederman; Binford; Dickinson) simplicity, , 242n3 symmetry, translational, 153 Geometry. See Invariants; Transformation Gestalt. See also Cognitive Revolution; Figure ground organization; Milestones; Simplicity quality, 28 29, 129 Psychology (Revolution), Gibson, J. J. See also Direct perception; Higher order variables; Millstones; Projective invariants approach, direct perception, 64 65, 80, 96, 132 ecological validity, 44 46, 80, 115, 233 figure ground organization, 129 invariants, shape ambiguity, 20 shape constancy, 96, 166, 235n1 surfaces, 82, 92, 115 Goethe, J. W., 36. See also Afterimage Good continuation, 30, 35, 111. See also Gestalt psychology; Perceptual organization Grassfire model. See Blum Gregory, R. L., 68 70, 238n9. See also Impossible triangle; Likelihood ; Simplicity Group of transformations. See Transformation

4 270 Index Grouping s. See Gestalt psychology; Perceptual organization Guzman, A., See also Polyhedral objects Hay, J., 96. See also Gibson; Kinetic depth effect Hebb, D. O., 15, 40, 61, See also Empiricism; Millstones; Neural networks; Motor theory Helmholtz, H. von, See also Empiricism; Millstones multiple views theory, 16, 137 perceptual learning, 14 15, 60 unconscious conclusion, 15, 22, 29, 64, 68, 235n3 Higher order variables, 28, 56, 87. See also Gestalt psychology; Gibson High-level processes, effect on perception, 60. See also Bruner Hochberg, J. See also Simplicity ; Shape, constancy impossible triangle, nativism in shape perception, 44 46, 53 shape constancy, 26, 127 simplicity, 36, 40 44, 46, 48, 50, 111, 236n14 Hoffman, D. D., 128, 242n2 Homogeneous coordinates, 75 76, 106, , 206, 220, 222, 238n3. See also Camera, uncalibrated Howard, I. P., 10. See also Binocular, disparity Hume, D., 240n15. See also Inverse problem Ideal observer, Ill-conditioned problem, 108, 155. See also Inverse problem Ill-posed problem, 108, 159. See also Inverse problem Illusions, 96, 165, , 233 Image formation, 11, 105, 113, , 205, 209, See also Perspective projection Impossible triangle, See also Gregory; Hochberg; Penrose Information theory, 32, 37, 40 41, 60, 69, 173, 225. See also Luce; Minimum description length; Shannon Invariants, 28, 80, 91, 95 97, 100, 107, 113, 198, See also Gibson; Milestones; Millstones; Shape, constancy; Transformation; Transposition affine, 205, 240n13 Euclidean, 203 model-based, 27, 78, , 214, , 223 perspective, 27, , 150, 212, projective, 26 27, 80, 95, , , similarity, 204 topological, 206 Inverse perspective projection, , 157, 159, 163, 169, 189, See also Perspective projection Inverse problem, 92, 95, , 113, 125, 145, 155, , 241n15. See also Bayesian approach; Forward problem; Milestones; Regularization approach Isoperimetric inequalities, 224, 241n16, 242n6. See also Compactness constraint Ittelson, W. H., 50. See also Empiricism; Perceptual learning; Transactional psychology Julesz, B., 81, 85, 90 91, 119, 122. See also Binocular, disparity; Marr; Random dot stereogram

5 Index 271 Kaiser, P. K., 20, 24, 51, 53. See also Camera, calibrated; Shape, ambiguity Kanade, T., 77, 133, 148. See also Symmetry Kanizsa, G., 154 Kersten, D., 123, 125, 138. See also Constraints Kilpatrick, F. P., 50, 63, 69. See also Empiricism; Perceptual learning; Transactional psychology Kinetic depth effect, See also Hay; Longuet-Higgins; Ullman; Wallach Klein, F., 8, 198, 202, 203. See also Erlanger Programm; Invariants; Transformation Knill, D. C., 91, 123, , 138, 225. See also Bayesian approach; Constraints; Inverse problem Knowledge, effects on shape perception, 18, 30. See also Empiricism; Shape, familiarity; Transactional psychology Koenderink, J. J. differential geometry, 92 projective geometry, 206 shape, 133, 219, 241n2 surfaces, , 123 Koffka, K. See also Brain forces; Gestalt psychology; Simplicity brain forces, 33, 36 vs. empiricism, 29 30, 32 perceived shape vs. perceived slant, 22 23, 26 shape, 33 34, 235n1 simplicity, 30, 32 33, 41, 110 Kohler, I., 63. See also Perceptual learning Köhler, W., 31, 56, 173. See also Brain currents; Gestalt psychology Kontsevich, L. L., 120. See also Symmetry Kopfermann, H., 33 34, 37, 41, 50, 183. See also Hochberg; Simplicity Lanczos, C., 31. See also Simplicity Learning. See Perceptual learning Leclerc, Y. G., 92, 143, 154, 183, 225, , 237n2. See also Marill; Minimum variance of angles; Planarity constraint Leeuwenberg, E. L. J., 42, 69. See also Information theory; Simplicity Leibowitz, H. W., 20. See also Shape ambiguity; Thouless Li, Y. See also Shape, constancy; Shape, constraints; Shape, reconstruction shape constancy, 55, 89, 94, , 121, 123, shape reconstruction, 120, 140, 143, 152, 159, 168, , 237n2 Likelihood, 50, 63, 69 70, 92, 174, 225. See also Empiricism; Mach; Simplicity Liu, Z., See also Ideal observer; Shape, constancy; Wire objects Locke, J., 13, 60. See also Empiricism Longuet-Higgins, H. C., 93 95, 119, 219, 240n10. See also Binocular, shape perception; Kinetic depth effect; Ullman Look-up table, 14 15, 68, 170. See also Berkeley; Helmholtz; Rock Loubier, K., 27, 139, 195, 217, 239n4. See also Invariants, Perspective Lowe, D. G., 112, 139, 181. See also Perceptual organization; Shape, recognition

6 272 Index Luce, R. D., 60. See also Information theory Luneburg, R. K., 241n1 Mach, E., 50. See also Likelihood ; Simplicity McKee, S. P., 119. See also Binocular, disparity; Depth perception Mamassian, P., , 243n8. See also Constraints; Surface reconstruction Marill, T., 92, 143, 154, 183, 230, 237n2. See also Leclerc; Minimum variance of angles Marr, D. See also Empiricism; Milestones; Millstones; Shape, constancy; Shape, reconstruction computational model, 80 81, 99 figure ground organization, 81 82, 85, 112, 129 object-centered representation, 83, 86, 162, 165 paradigm, 78 79, 90 92, 95, 107, 113, , 126, 152 psychophysical experiments, shape perception, 79 80, 89, 100, , 127, surface reconstruction, 81, 91 taking slant into account, 56, 81, 90, 117, 136 3D models, 86 87, 132, 153, 158, 241n2 2.5D sketch, 67, 81 82, 85, , 136, 157 Memory and perception, 15 16, 18, 59 60, 86, 98, 139, 158. See also Empiricism; Millstones; Transactional psychology; Wallach Mental rotation, , 131, 137. See also Shape, constancy; Shepard Miller, G. A., 40. See also Cognitive Revolution Millstones empiricism revisited, (see also Hebb; Rock) Gibson s direct perception, 175 Marr neglects psychophysics, Marr studies surfaces not shape, 176 neglecting figure ground organization, 175 over-generalizing shape constancy, (see also Shape ambiguity) projective invariants, shape thresholds and illusions taking slant into account, 170 (see also Marr; Thouless) taking surfaces into account, (see also Marr) Thouless ambiguous experiment, 171 (see also Shape, ambiguity) 3D shape percepts denied, 180 (see also Multiple views) Milestones cognitive psychologists start the study of 3D shape, 173 computational models introduced by machine vision, 174 (See also Marr) figure ground organization finally recognized, Gestalt simplicity and figure ground organization, inverse problems paradigm, (see also Regularization theory) perspective invariants and the calibrated camera, 178 (see also Image formation) shape constraints can reconstruct 3D shapes, 183 Stavrianos demonstrates shape constancy, 172 (see also Invariants, perspective) uniqueness of shape recognized, 181 Minimum description length, 225. See also Bayesian approach; Simplicity

7 Index 273 Minimum. See Simplicity Minimum variance of angles constraint, 53, 92, 143, 154, See also Leclerc; Marill; Simplicity Minsky, M., 39, 74, 128. See also Neural networks Motor theory of perception, 61, 99, 238n8. See also Berkeley; Eye movements; Festinger; Hebb Multiple views, 137, 139. See also Helmholtz; Millstones; Poggio Mundy, J. L., 200, 207, 209. See also Invariants Münsterberg, H., 39, 237n1 Nativism, 44, 56. See also Descartes; Empiricism; Hochberg Neo-empiricism, 61, 68, 174. See also Cognitive revolution; Empiricism; Likelihood Neo-Gestaltism. See Cognitive revolution; Nativism; Simplicity Neuman, J. von, 39. See also Cognitive revolution Neural networks, 31, 60, 74. See also Empiricism; Hebb; Pperceptual learning Neuroscience, 40, 60 61, 79, 173. See also Cognitive revolution Nevatia, R., 112, , 242n3, 242n7, 243n5. See also Figure ground organization; Symmetry New Look in perception, See also Bruner; Empiricism Norman, J. F., See also Binocular, disparity; Cue, to depth Object-centered representation, 67, 85, , 162. See also Marr; Shape; Viewer-centered representation Orientation of surface, 6, 14, 22, 24, 26, 49 50, 67, 79, 81 87, 89, 91, , 126, 166. See also 2.5D sketch; Marr; Slant; Viewer-centered representation; Viewing orientation Orthographic projection, 47 54, Palmer, S. E., 86, 160, 162, 165, 235n1. See also Canonical views; Object-centered representation Papathomas, T. V., 121. See also Constraints Parallelepipeds, 47, 50 53, 117, See also Attneave; Perkins Penrose, R., See also Impossible triangle Pentland, A. P., , 135, 140, 153. See also shape, 3D; Shape, parts Perceptual constancy (see Constancy) learning, 45, 59, 174 (see also Empiricism) organization, 27 35, 41, 44, 60, 64, 82, 112, 175 (see also Figure ground organization; Gestalt) Perkins, D. N. See also Parallelepipeds; Transactional psychology laws (rules), 50 54, (see also Invariants, Perspective) simplicity, shape perception, 24, 40, 118, 127, 212, 239n6 veridicality, 54 55, 73, 111 Perspective. See also Inverse perspective projection cue, (see also Symmetry) invariant (see Invariants, perspective) projection, 8, 51 (see also Image formation) vs. projective transformation, 26, , 105,

8 274 Index Perspective (cont.) transformation (see transformation, perspective) 3D to 2D, 14, 75, 80, 145, 153, , , D to 2D, 17, 19, 24, Phenomenal regression, 18. See also shape, constancy; Thouless Phi movement, 236n11. See also Gestalt psychology; Wertheimer Pizlo, Z. image formation, 102, , 195, (see also Fixed-center directional perspective) perspective invariants, 27, 105, 136, 139, 198, phi movement, 236n11 shape constancy, 26, 55, 83, 89, 94, , 123 shape constraints, shape reconstruction, 92, 140, 143, 152, 159, , simplicity, 121 Pizlo, F. J., 236n11 See also Phi movement Planarity constraint, 54 55, 92, 138, 143, , , 239n5. See also Inverse problem; Regularization approach; Simplicity Poggio, T., See also Milestones; Millstones; Regularization approach; Simplicity constraints, the role of, 125, 139, 236n13 inverse problems, , 156, multiple views theory, 137, 139 symmetry, 120, 152, 159 Polygonal line objects. See Wire objects Polyhedral objects. See also Sugihara perception, 42 44, 46, 54 56, 123, reconstruction, 76 78, 92, 106, , , , , 239n5 Prägnanz, 30, 37, 40, 164, 167, 240n15. See also Simplicity Precision of shape perception, 17, 25 (see also Stavrianos) of slant perception, 25 (see also Koenderink; Stavrianos) Priors. See Constraints Projection. See also Transformation. orthographic. See Orthographic projection perspective. See Perspective projection Projective. See Transformation, invariants Random dot stereogram, 81, 85, 90 91, 176. See also Binocular, disparity; Julesz Recognition by components theory, 87, , 164. See also Biederman; Dickinson; Pentland Recognition of shape. See Shape, recognition Reconstruction of shape. See Shape, reconstruction Rectangle. See Shape, constancy Rectangularity constraint, See also Perkins Regan, D., 91, 122. See also Binocular, disparity; Contour; Shape, 2D Regularization approach, , 125, 140, 156, , 236n13. See also Bayesian approach; Constraints; Inverse problem; Milestones Retinal shape. See Shape, retinal Richards, W., 87 88, 125, 128, 225. See also Bayesian approach; Marr Roberts, L. G., 74 77, 106, 112, 201, 217. See also Shape, recognition; Transformation, projective; Camera, uncalibrated

9 Index 275 Rock, I., See also 2.5D sketch; Millstones cognitive psychology, 64 depth, empiricism, 13, 64, 69 object-centered representation, 86, 165 unconscious inference, 64, 235n3 viewer-centered representation, 65, 67 wire objects, 65 67, 83, 137 Rosenfeld, A. See also Camera, calibrated image formation, 102, 185, 187, perspective invariants, 27, 105, 198, pyramid models, 112 shape parts, 133 Rothwell, C. A., 27, 106, 191, 198, 207, , 223. See also Invariants, model-based Salach-Golyska, M., 94, 105, 236n9. See also Shape, 3D; Structure from motion Scheessele, M. R., 195, 236n9. See also Camera; Transformation, Perspective, projective Schriever, W., 33 35, 37. See also Gestalt psychology; Shape, 3D; Simplicity Sensations, 13 16, 29, 80. See also Associations Shannon, C. E., 32, 37, 40. See also Bayesian approach; Information theory Shape ambiguity (see Ambiguity of shape) as a cue to slant, 26, 49, 56 complexity, 1 3, 5 6, 28, 74, 166 constraints (see Constraints; Simplicity ) constancy, 3 5, 10, 19, 73, 99, (see also Constancy; Simplicity ) definition. 3, 21, 235n1 and depth perception, 67, failure of, 66 67, and familiarity,18, 137 and figure ground organization, 3 5, 28, and invariants, 26 27, 80, 95 97, (see also Transposition ) and learning, 13 16, and shape perception, , 166 3D, 65 67, , , , 167 2D, 6 8, 17, definition, 1, , , 166, 204 parts, perception, 1, 29, (see also Milestones; Millstones) accuracy, 16 17, 23, 25 reliability (precision), 17, 25 and simplicity (see Constraints; Simplicity ) recognition, 5, reconstruction, 51, 54 56, 59, , , (see also Inverse problems; Regularization approach; Simplicity ) regularity, 90, 138 (see also Constraints; Symmetry) retinal, 5, 35. (see also Figure ground organization; Image formation) vs. surfaces, 81 86, 88 89, , D, 65, 86 87, threshold, (see also Brain forces) 2D, 28, 65 (see also Figure ground organization; Shape, retinal; Slant) veridicality, 3, 49, 68, 73,

10 276 Index Shepard, R. N., 115, 120, , See also Mental rotation; Shape, 3D; Shape, constancy Similarity transformation. See Transformations, invariants Simplicity, 30 32, 37, 60, 63 64, 73, 87, 135, , 225, 241. See also Constraints; Gestalt psychology; Inverse problem; Likelihood ; Milestones; Perceptual organization; Regularization approach and constancy, 124, 138, and minimum, 30 and reconstruction, 145, 152, , 169, 179, 183 surfaces, 92 3D shape, 33 35, 40 50, 53 57, 65 71, 89, , D shape, 33, 35 37, 65, 109, 111, and veridicality, 64, 173 Size, 2, 6, 86, 135 constancy (see Constancy, of size) perception, 8 10, 22 23, 28, 62, 64 Sinha, P., 242n7. See also Shape, constraints; Shape, reconstruction Slant. See also Viewing orientation as a cue to shape (see Slant, taking into account) cues, 18 20, 23, 26 definition, 16, 185 perception, 22 26, 28, 49, 51, 56, taking into account, 16 23, 26, 28, 49, 56, 81, 113, 117, 136 (see also Millstones) underestimation, 25, 55, 239n6 Slater, A., 59. See also Nativism Smoothness constraint, 91 93, 107, 140, , 242n6. See also Surfaces, reconstruction Stankiewicz, B. J., 136, 139. See also Shape, 3D; Shape, parts; Shape, recognition Stavrianos, B. K. invariants, 104, 178, shape ambiguity, 235n5 shape constancy, 22 27, 120, 172 vs. slant perception, 56, 117, 236n7 Steinman, R. M., 120, 159, 236n11. See also Phi movement; Shape reconstruction Stevens, K. A., 92, 117, 121, 125, , 185. See also Constraints; Surface reconstruction Stevenson, A. K., 55, 83, 94, 120, 143, 229. See also Kinetic depth effect; Shape, constancy; Shape, reconstruction Structure from motion, See also Kinetic depth effect; Longuet- Higgins; Ullman Sugihara, K., 77 78, , 158, , See also Camera, calibrated; Model-based invariants; Shape, reconstruction Superquadrics, , 153. See also Pentland; Shape, parts Surfaces. See also 2.5D sketch perception, 3, 14, 67, , 123, vs. shape, 21, 79, 88 89, 100, , (see also Millstones) Symmetry broken or distorted, (see also Perspective cue) constraint, 54 55, 83, 90, 118, 120, 124, 126, 138, 140, 143, , , in figure ground organization, 30 31, mirror (bilateral), 129, 152 translational,

11 Index 277 Taking into account explanation (). See also Millstones Alhazen, 9 10 Berkeley, 14 Descartes, 11 Marr, 100, 117 Rock, 68 Thouless, 9, Woodworth, 20 Tarr, M. J., 137. See also Shape, ambiguity; Viewpoint dependence Theory. See Computational model Thinking and perception, 12, 64, 174. See also Rock; Unconscious conclusion Thouless, R. H. See also Millstones; Taking into account shape ambiguity, 16 20, 28, 36, 68, 75, 120, 215, 233 shape perception, 9, 22 vs. Stavrianos, 22 24, Tilt. See also Slant; Surfaces definition, perception, Tikhonov, A. N., 107. See also Ill-posed problem; Inverse problem; Regularization approach Todd, J. T., 116, 118, 120. See also Depth perception; Marr; Shape, constancy; Viewer-centered representation Topological. See Invariants; Transformation Transactional psychology, 49, 53, See also Ames; Constraints; Empiricism; Ittelson; Kilpatrick; Perceptual learning Transformation. See also Invariants affine, 139, 205 Euclidean, perspective, 6 (see also Perspective, projection) projective, 75 76, 80, 95, 107, 206 similarity, 204 topological, 206 Transposition, 240n9 Triangle. See Ambiguity of shape 2.5D sketch. See also Marr; Viewercentered representation; Millstones figure ground organization, 112 Marr, 81 87, 113 Poggio, 107, 111 psychophysics, 116, 125 Rock, 67 shape regularities, 90 shape, uniqueness, 126, 135 simplicity, 157, 239n6 surface reconstruction, 91 95, viewpoint dependence, Ullman, S., 56 57, 59, 93 96, 139. See also Kinetic depth effect; Marr; Structure from motion Unconscious conclusion, 235n3. See also Helmholtz; Rock Unconscious inference. See Unconscious conclusion Van Doorn, A. J., , 133, 206, 219 Veridicality, 1, 3, 28, 42, 59 60, 64, 76, 96, 101, 108, 111, 125, 128, See also Shape, veridicality; Simplicity Vetter, T., 120, 152, 159. See also Symmetry Viewpoint, 86 dependence, invariance, 134, 136, 166 (see also Constancy; Shape) Viewer-centered representation, 67, 83, , 179. See also 2.5D sketch; Marr; Object-centered representation; Rock; Surfaces; Viewpoint dependence

12 278 Index Viewing direction, orientation, 1, 6, 17, 21, 86, 120, 128, 136, 168, 179, 180. See also Shape, constancy; Slant Volume, 49, 67, 84 86, 89, , , 153, 155, 159, 162, 164, 167, 231. See also Compactness constraint Wagemans, J., 136, 240n13. See also Shape, invariants Wallach, H. Cognitive Revolution, 40, 64 figural-aftereffects, 173 kinetic depth effect, 57 59, 93 perceptual learning, 56 57, 59 shape ambiguity, 20 Waltz, D., 77, 239n5. See also Polyhedral objects Weinshall, D., 27. See also Invariants, Model-based Weiss, I., , 153, 178, 207, 213. See also Camera, calibrated; Invariants, projective Wertheimer, M., 27, 29, 31 32, 236n11. See also Gestalt psychology Wiener, N., 39, 237n1. See also Cybernetics Wire (polygonal line) objects, 58 59, 65 68, 82 85, 89, 94, , 140, 142, 171, 231, 233. See also Shape ambiguity Witkin, A. P., 92, 96, 231. See also Surface reconstruction Woodworth, R. S., 22. See also Taking into account Zisserman, A., 200, 202, 207, 209. See also Transformation, projective Zusne, L., 36, 235n1, 240n9. See also Shape, threshold