R Gray1, D Regan. 1. Department of Psychology, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: For cyclopean and monocularly-visible targets we measured psychophysical thresholds for perceptions produced by the following three stimuli: oscillations of disparity (DO), oscillations of size (SO) and oscillatory motion within the frontoparallel plane (FPO). RESULTS: thresholds for motion in depth perception produced by DO were similar for cyclopean and non-cyclopean targets over the entire 0.25-8 Hz frequency range investigated. Thresholds for perceiving motion in depth produced by SO were considerably (up to 2.5 times) higher for cyclopean targets than for monocularly-visible targets, as were thresholds for perceiving size oscillations. For both cyclopean and monocularly-visible target the perception of motion in depth could be canceled by pitting DO vs SO. Thresholds for perceiving FPO were similar to DO thresholds for the monocularly-visible target, but for the cyclopean targets FPO thresholds rose more steeply than DO thresholds for oscillation frequencies above 1 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: (1) for our subjects, the effective binocular stimulus for motion in depth perception is a rate of change of disparity; an interocular velocity difference is significant only to the extent that it produces a rate of change of disparity. (2) The sensations of motion in depth produced by DO and SO are qualitatively identical. (3) Neural signals produced by DO and SO converge onto a single neural mechanism that signals motion in depth.
UNLABELLED: For cyclopean and monocularly-visible targets we measured psychophysical thresholds for perceptions produced by the following three stimuli: oscillations of disparity (DO), oscillations of size (SO) and oscillatory motion within the frontoparallel plane (FPO). RESULTS: thresholds for motion in depth perception produced by DO were similar for cyclopean and non-cyclopean targets over the entire 0.25-8 Hz frequency range investigated. Thresholds for perceiving motion in depth produced by SO were considerably (up to 2.5 times) higher for cyclopean targets than for monocularly-visible targets, as were thresholds for perceiving size oscillations. For both cyclopean and monocularly-visible target the perception of motion in depth could be canceled by pitting DO vs SO. Thresholds for perceiving FPO were similar to DO thresholds for the monocularly-visible target, but for the cyclopean targets FPO thresholds rose more steeply than DO thresholds for oscillation frequencies above 1 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: (1) for our subjects, the effective binocular stimulus for motion in depth perception is a rate of change of disparity; an interocular velocity difference is significant only to the extent that it produces a rate of change of disparity. (2) The sensations of motion in depth produced by DO and SO are qualitatively identical. (3) Neural signals produced by DO and SO converge onto a single neural mechanism that signals motion in depth.