Literature DB >> 21447644

The vertical horopter is not adaptable, but it may be adaptive.

Emily A Cooper1, Johannes Burge, Martin S Banks.   

Abstract

Depth estimates from disparity are most precise when the visual input stimulates corresponding retinal points or points close to them. Corresponding points have uncrossed disparities in the upper visual field and crossed disparities in the lower visual field. Due to these disparities, the vertical part of the horopter--the positions in space that stimulate corresponding points--is pitched top-back. Many have suggested that this pitch is advantageous for discriminating depth in the natural environment, particularly relative to the ground. We asked whether the vertical horopter is adaptive (suited for perception of the ground) and adaptable (changeable by experience). Experiment 1 measured the disparities between corresponding points in 28 observers. We confirmed that the horopter is pitched. However, it is also typically convex making it ill-suited for depth perception relative to the ground. Experiment 2 tracked locations of corresponding points while observers wore lenses for 7 days that distorted binocular disparities. We observed no change in the horopter, suggesting that it is not adaptable. We also showed that the horopter is not adaptive for long viewing distances because at such distances uncrossed disparities between corresponding points cannot be stimulated. The vertical horopter seems to be adaptive for perceiving convex, slanted surfaces at short distances.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21447644      PMCID: PMC3804431          DOI: 10.1167/11.3.20

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


  23 in total

1.  Where is the sun?

Authors:  J Sun; P Perona
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  A prior for global convexity in local shape-from-shading.

Authors:  M S Langer; H H Bülthoff
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.490

3.  Perceiving slant about a horizontal axis from stereopsis.

Authors:  M S Banks; I T Hooge; B T Backus
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Perceptual biases in the interpretation of 3D shape from shading.

Authors:  Baoxia Liu; James T Todd
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Stereoscopic correspondence for ambiguous targets is affected by elevation and fixation distance.

Authors:  Paul B Hibbard; Samira Bouzit
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2005

6.  Cyclofusional movements.

Authors:  K N OGLE; V J ELLERBROCK
Journal:  Arch Ophthal       Date:  1946-12

7.  The stereoscopic frame of reference in asymmetric convergence of the eyes.

Authors:  G Amigo
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1967-09       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  A neurophysiological determination of the vertical horopter in the cat and owl.

Authors:  M L Cooper; J D Pettigrew
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  1979-03-01       Impact factor: 3.215

9.  A statistical explanation of visual space.

Authors:  Zhiyong Yang; Dale Purves
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 24.884

10.  Torsional and vertical eye movements during head tilt dynamic characteristics.

Authors:  Tony Pansell; Hermann D Schworm; Jan Ygge
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  13 in total

1.  Vergence eye movements are not essential for stereoscopic depth.

Authors:  Arthur J Lugtigheid; Laurie M Wilcox; Robert S Allison; Ian P Howard
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Mice Discriminate Stereoscopic Surfaces Without Fixating in Depth.

Authors:  Jason M Samonds; Veronica Choi; Nicholas J Priebe
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Perceived depth in natural images reflects encoding of low-level luminance statistics.

Authors:  Emily A Cooper; Anthony M Norcia
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Binocular Eye Movements Are Adapted to the Natural Environment.

Authors:  Agostino Gibaldi; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Stereopsis is adaptive for the natural environment.

Authors:  William W Sprague; Emily A Cooper; Ivana Tošić; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 14.136

6.  Estimation of the horizon in photographed outdoor scenes by human and machine.

Authors:  Christian Herdtweck; Christian Wallraven
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The natural statistics of blur.

Authors:  William W Sprague; Emily A Cooper; Sylvain Reissier; Baladitya Yellapragada; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  The Active Side of Stereopsis: Fixation Strategy and Adaptation to Natural Environments.

Authors:  Agostino Gibaldi; Andrea Canessa; Silvio P Sabatini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Natural scene statistics predict how humans pool information across space in surface tilt estimation.

Authors:  Seha Kim; Johannes Burge
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  The venetian-blind effect: a preference for zero disparity or zero slant?

Authors:  Björn N S Vlaskamp; Phillip Guan; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-11-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.