Disparity-defined objects moving in depth do not elicit three-dimensional shape constancy

Observers generally fail to recover three-dimensional shape accurately from binocular disparity. Typically, depth is overestimated at near distances and underestimated at far distances [Johnston, E. B. (1991). Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis. Vision Research, 31, 1351–1360]. A simple prediction from this is that disparity-defined objects should appear to expand in depth when moving towards the observer, and compress in depth when moving away. However, additional information is provided when an object moves from which 3D Euclidean shape can be recovered, be this through the addition of structure from motion information [Richards, W. (1985). Structure from stereo and motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2, 343–349], or the use of non-generic strategies [Todd, J. T., & Norman, J. F. (2003). The visual perception of 3-D shape from multiple cues: Are observers capable of perceiving metric structure? Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 31–47]. Here, we investigated shape constancy for objects moving in depth. We found that to be perceived as constant in shape, objects needed to contract in depth when moving toward the observer, and expand in depth when moving away, countering the effects of incorrect distance scaling (Johnston, 1991). This is a striking example of the failure of shape con- stancy, but one that is predicted if observers neither accurately estimate object distance in order to recover Euclidean shape, nor are able to base their responses on a simpler processing strategy.

Moving on in Neolithic studies: understanding mobile lives

Mobility is a fundamental facet of being human and should be central to archaeology. Yet mobility itself and the role it plays in the production of social life, is rarely considered as a subject in its own right. This is particularly so with discussions of the Neolithic people where mobility is often framed as being somewhere between a sedentary existence and nomadic movements. This volume examines the importance and complexities of movement and mobility, whether on land or water, in the Neolithic period. It uses movement in its widest sense, ranging from everyday mobilities – the routines and rhythms of daily life – to proscribed mobility, such as movement in and around monuments, and occasional and large-scale movements and migrations around the continent and across seas. Papers are roughly grouped and focus on ‘mobility and the landscape’, ‘monuments and mobility’, ‘travelling by water’, and ‘materials and mobility’. Through these themes the volume considers the movement of people, ideas, animals, objects, and information, and uses a wide range of archaeological evidence from isotope analysis; artefact studies; lithic scatters and assemblage diversity.

A moving observer in a three-dimensional world

For many tasks, such as retrieving a previously viewed object, an observer must form a representation of the world at one location and use it at another. A world-based 3D reconstruction of the scene built up from visual information would fulfil this requirement, something computer vision now achieves with great speed and accuracy. However, I argue that it is neither easy nor necessary for the brain to do this. I discuss biologically plausible alternatives, including the possibility of avoiding 3D coordinate frames such as ego-centric and world-based representations. For example, the distance, slant and local shape of surfaces dictate the propensity of visual features to move in the image with respect to one another as the observer’s perspective changes (through movement or binocular viewing). Such propensities can be stored without the need for 3D reference frames. The problem of representing a stable scene in the face of continual head and eye movements is an appropriate starting place for understanding the goal of 3D vision, more so, I argue, than the case of a static binocular observer.