{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02521823472356935, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.701298701298701, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Perceiving pictures : An interdisciplinary approach to pictorial space

The three-dimensional space around us is conveniently and reasonably Euclidean. Can we assume our perception of this space, and of objects in it, would follow suit? This assumption is quite natural, but empirical results suggest that it is also quite wrong, except in narrow circumstances. Perceptual space grades from being nearly Euclidean within a meter of our eyes to being affine and foreshortened at increasing distance, although considerable variation occurs across task, environments, and individuals. Compression with distance is steeper than one modeled by an exponent. Since pictures are most typically composed with distant content, similar perceived distortions should and do occur in pictorial, particularly photographic, space. One can think of perceived space—even at is articulated, near-Euclidean best—as built up incrementally from constraints of ordinality. These constraints, when sufficiently rich, converge on a nearEuclidean framework.