Literature DB >> 29710302

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

Brian C McCann1, Mary M Hayhoe2, Wilson S Geisler2.   

Abstract

Little is known about distance discrimination in real scenes, especially at long distances. This is not surprising given the logistical difficulties of making such measurements. To circumvent these difficulties, we collected 81 stereo images of outdoor scenes, together with precisely registered range images that provided the ground-truth distance at each pixel location. We then presented the stereo images in the correct viewing geometry and measured the ability of human subjects to discriminate the distance between locations in the scene, as a function of absolute distance (3 m to 30 m) and the angular spacing between the locations being compared (2°, 5°, and 10°). Measurements were made for binocular and monocular viewing. Thresholds for binocular viewing were quite small at all distances (Weber fractions less than 1% at 2° spacing and less than 4% at 10° spacing). Thresholds for monocular viewing were higher than those for binocular viewing out to distances of 15-20 m, beyond which they were the same. Using standard cue-combination analysis, we also estimated what the thresholds would be based on binocular-stereo cues alone. With two exceptions, we show that the entire pattern of results is consistent with what one would expect from classical studies of binocular disparity thresholds and separation/size discrimination thresholds measured with simple laboratory stimuli. The first exception is some deviation from the expected pattern at close distances (especially for monocular viewing). The second exception is that thresholds in natural scenes are lower, presumably because of the rich figural cues contained in natural images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29710302      PMCID: PMC5901372          DOI: 10.1167/18.4.12

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


  38 in total

Review 1.  Contributions of ideal observer theory to vision research.

Authors:  Wilson S Geisler
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 2.  Object perception as Bayesian inference.

Authors:  Daniel Kersten; Pascal Mamassian; Alan Yuille
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 24.137

3.  Stereoscopic perception of real depths at large distances.

Authors:  Stephen Palmisano; Barbara Gillam; Donovan G Govan; Robert S Allison; Julie M Harris
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Environmental context influences visually perceived distance.

Authors:  Joseph S Lappin; Amy L Shelton; John J Rieser
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2006-05

5.  Weighted linear cue combination with possibly correlated error.

Authors:  Ipek Oruç; Laurence T Maloney; Michael S Landy
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Terrain influences the accurate judgement of distance.

Authors:  M J Sinai; T L Ooi; Z J He
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-10-01       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions.

Authors:  J W Philbeck; J M Loomis
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells.

Authors:  D J Field
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 2.129

9.  Spatial configurations for visual hyperacuity.

Authors:  G Westheimer; S P McKee
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1977       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
  6 in total

1.  Shape judgments in natural scenes: Convexity biases versus stereopsis.

Authors:  Brittney Hartle; Aishwarya Sudhama-Joseph; Elizabeth L Irving; Robert S Allison; Mackenzie G Glaholt; Laurie M Wilcox
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 2.004

2.  Factors affecting depth perception and comparison of depth perception measured by the three-rods test in monocular and binocular vision.

Authors:  Ikko Iehisa; Masahiko Ayaki; Kazuo Tsubota; Kazuno Negishi
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2020-09-25

3.  Cerebellar projections to the macaque midbrain tegmentum: Possible near response connections.

Authors:  Martin O Bohlen; Paul D Gamlin; Susan Warren; Paul J May
Journal:  Vis Neurosci       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.241

4.  Kinetic visual acuity is correlated with functional visual acuity at higher speeds.

Authors:  Ikko Iehisa; Kazuno Negishi; Masahiko Ayaki; Kazuo Tsubota
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-11-19

5.  Binocular vision and the control of foot placement during walking in natural terrain.

Authors:  Kathryn Bonnen; Jonathan S Matthis; Agostino Gibaldi; Martin S Banks; Dennis M Levi; Mary Hayhoe
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Binocular vision supports the development of scene segmentation capabilities: Evidence from a deep learning model.

Authors:  Ross Goutcher; Christian Barrington; Paul B Hibbard; Bruce Graham
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 2.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.