Literature DB >> 20884470

The precision of binocular and monocular depth judgments in natural settings.

Suzanne P McKee1, Douglas G Taylor.   

Abstract

We measured binocular and monocular depth thresholds for objects presented in a real environment. Observers judged the depth separating a pair of metal rods presented either in relative isolation, or surrounded by other objects, including a textured surface. In the isolated setting, binocular thresholds were greatly superior to the monocular thresholds by as much as a factor of 18. The presence of adjacent objects and textures improved the monocular thresholds somewhat, but the superiority of binocular viewing remained substantial (roughly a factor of 10). To determine whether motion parallax would improve monocular sensitivity for the textured setting, we asked observers to move their heads laterally, so that the viewing eye was displaced by 8-10 cm; this motion produced little improvement in the monocular thresholds. We also compared disparity thresholds measured with the real rods to thresholds measured with virtual images in a standard mirror stereoscope. Surprisingly, for the two naive observers, the stereoscope thresholds were far worse than the thresholds for the real rods-a finding that indicates that stereoscope measurements for unpracticed observers should be treated with caution. With practice, the stereoscope thresholds for one observer improved to almost the precision of the thresholds for the real rods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20884470      PMCID: PMC2951307          DOI: 10.1167/10.10.5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  32 in total

1.  Learning to see random-dot stereograms.

Authors:  A J O'Toole; D J Kersten
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.490

2.  Mechanisms of perceptual learning of depth discrimination in random dot stereograms.

Authors:  Liat Gantz; Saumil S Patel; Susana T L Chung; Ronald S Harwerth
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2007-06-22       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Binocular depth discrimination and estimation beyond interaction space.

Authors:  Robert S Allison; Barbara J Gillam; Elia Vecellio
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Finding the common bond: stereoacuity and the other hyperacuities.

Authors:  S P McKee; L Welch; D G Taylor; S F Bowne
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Mechanisms underlying the anisotropy of stereoscopic tilt perception.

Authors:  G J Mitchison; S P McKee
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  The imprecision of stereopsis.

Authors:  S P McKee; D M Levi; S F Bowne
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Evidence for good recovery of lengths of real objects seen with natural stereo viewing.

Authors:  J P Frisby; D Buckley; P A Duke
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 8.  Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion.

Authors:  M S Landy; L T Maloney; E B Johnston; M Young
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Effects of practice and the separation of test targets on foveal and peripheral stereoacuity.

Authors:  M Fendick; G Westheimer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant?

Authors:  David C Knill; Jeffrey A Saunders
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  21 in total

1.  Recovery of stereopsis through perceptual learning in human adults with abnormal binocular vision.

Authors:  Jian Ding; Dennis M Levi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Stereopsis and amblyopia: A mini-review.

Authors:  Dennis M Levi; David C Knill; Daphne Bavelier
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 3.  The neural basis of depth perception from motion parallax.

Authors:  HyungGoo R Kim; Dora E Angelaki; Gregory C DeAngelis
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2016-06-19       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Psychophysical evidence for auditory motion parallax.

Authors:  Daria Genzel; Michael Schutte; W Owen Brimijoin; Paul R MacNeilage; Lutz Wiegrebe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Determinants of neural responses to disparity in natural scenes.

Authors:  Yiran Duan; Alexandra Yakovleva; Anthony M Norcia
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Feature-location binding in 3D: Feature judgments are biased by 2D location but not position-in-depth.

Authors:  Nonie J Finlayson; Julie D Golomb
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Predicting Stereopsis in Macular Degeneration.

Authors:  Preeti Verghese; Saeideh Ghahghaei
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Contributions of monocular and binocular cues to distance discrimination in natural scenes.

Authors:  Brian C McCann; Mary M Hayhoe; Wilson S Geisler
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Scaffolding depth cues and perceptual learning in VR to train stereovision: a proof of concept pilot study.

Authors:  Angelica Godinez; Santiago Martín-González; Oliver Ibarrondo; Dennis M Levi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  The role of binocular disparity in rapid scene and pattern recognition.

Authors:  Matteo Valsecchi; Baptiste Caziot; Benjamin T Backus; Karl R Gegenfurtner
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2013-04-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.