{"id":243,"date":"2016-02-04T16:45:14","date_gmt":"2016-02-04T21:45:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/?page_id=243"},"modified":"2018-08-29T12:03:54","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T16:03:54","slug":"invariants-in-the-changing-optic-array-and-what-they-specify-for-an-observer-in-an-environment","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/1970-1971\/invariants-in-the-changing-optic-array-and-what-they-specify-for-an-observer-in-an-environment\/","title":{"rendered":"Invariants in the Changing Optic Array and What They Specify for an Observer in an Environment"},"content":{"rendered":"

June 1971<\/p>\n

Invariants in the Changing Optic Array and<\/strong>
\nWhat They Specify for an Observer in an Environment<\/strong><\/p>\n

J. J. Gibson, Cornell University<\/p>\n

The World Wide Web distribution of James Gibson’s “Purple Perils” is for scholarly use with the understanding that Gibson did not intend them for publication. References to these essays must cite them explicitly as unpublished manuscripts. Copies may be circulated if this statement is included on each copy.<\/h5>\n

 <\/p>\n

The following hypotheses are based on the general assumption of ecological optics that the ambient optic array normally undergoes changes, and that a “frozen” array is a limiting case\u2014the case of a motionless observer in an eventless world. The information about the layout of the world is more or less ambiguous in this limiting case because many of the invariants-under-change are not then isolated. Since a picture represents a sample of such a frozen ambient array, the pictorial “cues for depth” are insufficient to explain normal perception; hence they are omitted from consideration here (cf. Kennedy, 1970; Gibson, 1971). References to the experiments tending to show that these invariants can actually be picked up by an observer, from the Cornell laboratory and elsewhere, are listed along with the hypotheses. They are not always conclusive because they were not performed with these explicit hypotheses in mind, although they often anticipate the present formulation.<\/p>\n

It is here assumed that the environment is normally “cluttered,” i.e., that some of its component surfaces are hidden or occluded at any fixed point of observation (unprojected in a given ambient array) and that a wholly “open” terrain and an unfurnished windowless room constitute a limiting case. Hence the formula reducing environmental layout to the slants of surfaces and their changes of<\/u> slant (Gibson, 1950) is insufficient, along with the theory of optical gradients<\/u> as a substitute for the depth-cues. The implications of the horizon<\/u> of the open terrain, and the vanishing limits of texture-density and textural change in the ambient array will not be followed up here, although a supplementary set of hypotheses could be limited for this problem. Neither will the implications of the dual optic array at two binocular points of observation. In the left-hand column are listed what may be called invariants or regularities in the topological structure of the array (optical stimulus-information as contrasted with optical stimulation) and in the right-hand column are listed what they specify or “mean.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
I. A persisting texture in the ambient optic array, elements of which map themselves over time.<\/span><\/td>\nA solid substance in the environment, with a surface facing the point of observation (Gibson and Waddell, 1952).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ia Scintillation<\/u> of the texture of the ambient optic array with no elements that persist for long, and no mapping to themselves over time (i.e. no invariants).<\/td>\nA chaos, i.e., a nonexistence of solid substances and an absence of persisting layout.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
II. A region of the ambient optic array without<\/u> texture or structure (a non-array).<\/td>\nAir, sky, or interspace in the environment with no background behind it.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
III. A contrast-contour in the optic array (border).<\/span><\/td>\nHighly ambiguous: not only an edge in the environment but also many other things.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
IIIa. A closed<\/u> contour in the optic array: a form or silhouette.<\/span><\/td>\nAmbiguous: may be either a detached object in the environment or a window (hole). But also a patch of pigment on a surface, or a cast shadow.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
IIIb. The size-transformation<\/u> of a closed contour or form in the optic array, i.e., an expansion or contraction of the contour as such.<\/td>\nSomewhat ambiguous: expansion specifies approach<\/u> and contraction specifies recession<\/u> but the former may be either approach of\u00a0<\/u>something or approach to\u00a0<\/u>something, and the latter may be either recession of<\/u> or recession\u00a0from<\/u> something (Gibson, 1957; Gibson and Gibson, 1957).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
IV. A contour in the array on one side<\/u> of which the optical texture persists in time (i.e., the one-to-one successive mapping of elements is perceived on that side of the contour).<\/td>\nThe occluding edge of a surface (or an object) in the environment (Gibson, Kaplan, Reynolds, and Wheeler, 1969. Also the film).<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

IVa. The progressive deletion of texture elements on the other side of such a contour or its inverse, the progressive accretion<\/u> of elements.<\/td>\nA surface in the environment being concealed behind an occluding edge or the opposite event, a surface being revealed<\/u> at an occluding edge (film on optical transitions).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
V. A closed<\/u> contour in the array with persistence of texture elements inside<\/u> the contour and deletion or accretion of elementsoutside<\/u> the contour.<\/td>\nA detached solid object with occluding edges in front of a background in the environment (film on optical transitions).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Va. The reverse: A closed contour in the array with persistence of texture elements outside<\/u> the contour and deletion or accretioninside<\/u>.<\/td>\nA hole or window in front of a background in the environment (film on optical transitions.)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Vb. A closed contour in the array with persisting texture inside (V) and with both deletion and accretion outside, the one being equal to the other.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Equality of deletion and accretion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2014 Axis of deletion to accretion.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/td>\n

A solid object moving<\/u> in front of a\u00a0stationary<\/u> background with a “leading” edge (covering it) and a “trailing” edge (uncovering it).<\/p>\n

\u2014 Parallel<\/u> motion of the object to the surface of the background.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Direction of motion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Vc. A rectilinear contour at which a disruption<\/u> of adjacent elements of the optical texture occurs without deletion or accretion of elements on either side of the contour (a limiting case).<\/td>\nThe linear motion along itself of a straight occluding edge of an object in front of a stationary background. (In the limiting case this might be confused with a shearing<\/u> motion of a surface relative to an adjacent surface at a crack<\/u> in the substance.) (Gibson, Gibson, Smith, and Flock, 1959).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VI. A persisting “frozen” texture of the ambient optic array, not only mapping to itself over time (I) but also unchanging in pattern and form.<\/span><\/td>\nA permanent environment with a stationary observer (ego) but with a more-or-less indeterminate layout (Gibson, 1958).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VIa. Motion perspective of the texture of the ambient optic array (centrifugal and centripetal flow to opposite poles, i.e., magnification and minification).<\/td>\nLocomotion of the observer relative to a permanent environment with a fixed layout (Gibson, Olum, and Rosenblatt, 1955).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VIb. Centrifugal flow of the texture in an ambient optic array (magnification) or its inverse, centripetal flow (minification).<\/td>\nLocomotor approach to a surface in the environment or its opposite, recession from a surface (going away from.) (Gibson, Olum, and Rosenblatt, 1955).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VII. Size-transformation of a closed contour (IIIb) with persistence of texture-mapping inside the contour but not outside (V) and a frozen texture outside (VI).<\/td>\nApproach of a detached solid object to a stationary observer in a permanent environment (Schiff, 1965).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VIIa. Same as above but with magnification (centrifugal flow) of the texture outside the contour.<\/td>\nApproach of the observer to a stationary detached object in the environment (Gibson, 1958).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VIII. The pole<\/u> of the centrifugal flow of the texture of an array (the center of magnification in the ambient array).<\/td>\nThe direction<\/u> of the path of approach of the observer to the permanent environment (the object at which locomotion is aimed) (Gibson, 1955).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VIIIa. A symmetrical<\/u>magnification of a closed contour and its enclosed texture (the center of the figure and the center of expansion coincide.)<\/td>\nApproach of a solid object on a collision course toward the observer (Schiff, 1965).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VIIIb. Asymmetrical magnification of a closed contour and its enclosed texture (the center of magnification is outside<\/u> the closed contour.)<\/td>\nApproach of a solid object on a\u00a0non<\/u>-collision or “passing” course (Schiff, 1965).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J. The perception of the visual world<\/u>. 1950.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J. & Waddell, D. Homogeneous retinal stimulation and visual perception. Amer. J. Psychol<\/u>., 1952, 65<\/u>, 263 – 270.<\/p>\n

Kennedy, J. M. Line drawings and pictorial perception. Ph. D. Thesis, 1970.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J. The information available in pictures. Leonardo<\/u>, 1971, 4<\/u>, 27-35.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J. Optical motions and transformations as stimuli for visual perception. Psychol. Rev<\/u>., 1957, 64<\/u>, 228-295.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J., & Gibson, E. J. Continuous perspective transformations and the perception of rigid motion. J. exp. Psychol<\/u>., 1957, 54<\/u>, 129-138.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J., Kaplan, G. A., Reynolds, H., & Wheeler, K. The change from visible to invisible: A study of optical transitions. Percept. & Psychophys<\/u>., 1969, 5<\/u>, 113-116.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J., Gibson, E. J., Smith, O. & Flock, H.R. Motion parallax as a determinant of perceived depth. J. exp. Psychol<\/u>., 1959, 58<\/u>, 40-51.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J. Visually controlled locomotion and visual orientation in animals. Brit. J. Psychol<\/u>., 1958, 49<\/u>, 182-194.<\/p>\n

Schiff, W. Perception of impending collision. Psychol. Monger<\/u>., 1965, 79<\/u>, #604.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J., Olum, P., & Rosenblatt, F. Parallax and perspective during aircraft landings. Amer. J. Psychol<\/u>., 1955, 68<\/u>, 372-385.<\/p>\n

Gibson, J. J. The optical expansion pattern in aerial locomotion. Amer. J. Psychol<\/u>., 1955, 68<\/u>, 480-484.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

June 1971 Invariants in the Changing Optic Array and What They Specify for an Observer in an Environment J. J. Gibson, Cornell University The World Wide Web distribution of James Gibson’s “Purple Perils” is for scholarly use with the understanding that Gibson did not intend them for publication. References to these essays must cite them … Continue reading “Invariants in the Changing Optic Array and What They Specify for an Observer in an Environment”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1001,"featured_media":0,"parent":22,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/243"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1001"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":406,"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/243\/revisions\/406"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/22"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/purpleperils\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}