A Restatement and Modification of Wells-Hering's Laws of Visual Direction

Ono, Hiroshi; Mapp, Alistair P.

doi:10.1068/p240237

Cited by 50 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The WheatstonePanum limiting case can give rise to an impression oftwo objects at different depths and is interesting to researchers because, so far, there is no single hypothesis that can adequately account for the percept (Ono, Shimono, & Shibuta, 1992). For example, the classical double fusion hypothesis, which states that both images on one retina are fused with the single image on the other (Hering, 1865, cited in Ono & Mapp, 1995;Ogle, 1962), cannot account for the magnitude and the direction of the perceived depth reThis research was supported by Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research (7610068) provided by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. K. Shimono worked on this study while he was at the Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, as a visiting researcher from the Department of Information Engineering and Logistics, Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wheatstone—Panum limiting case: Occlusion, camouflage, and vergence-induced disparity cues

Shimono

Tam

Nakamizo

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined effects of binocular occlusion, binocular camouflage, and vergence-induced disparity cues on the perceived depth between two objects when two stimuli are presented to one eye and a single stimulus to the other (Wheatstone-Panum limiting case). The perceived order and magnitude of the depth were examined in two experimental conditions: (l) The stimulus was presented on the temporal side (occlusion condition) and (2) the nasal side (camouflage condition) of the stimulus pair on one retina so as to fuse with the single stimulus on the other retina. In both conditions, the separation between the stimulus pair presented to one eye was systematically varied. Experiment 1, with 16 observers, showed that the fused object was seen in front of the nonfused object in the occlusion condition and was seen at the same distance as the nonfused object in the camouflage condition. The perceived depth between the two objects was constant and did not depend on the separation of the stimulus pair presented to one eye. Experiment 2, with 45 observers, showed that the disparity induced by vergence mainly determined the perceived depth, and the depth magnitude increased as the separation of the stimulus pair was made wider. The results suggest that (1) occlusion provides depth-order information but not depth-magnitude information, (2) camouflage provides neither depth-order nor depth-magnitude information, and (3) vergence-induced disparity provides both order and magnitude information.One of the most interesting stimulus configurations examined in the field of binocular stereopsis is the Wheatstone-Panum limiting case: 1 two images are projected on one retina and a single image on the other retina (Panum, 1858(Panum, /1940Wheatstone, 1838). The WheatstonePanum limiting case can give rise to an impression oftwo objects at different depths and is interesting to researchers because, so far, there is no single hypothesis that can adequately account for the percept (Ono, Shimono, & Shibuta, 1992). For example, the classical double fusion hypothesis, which states that both images on one retina are fused with the single image on the other (Hering, 1865, cited in Ono & Mapp, 1995Ogle, 1962), cannot account for the magnitude and the direction of the perceived depth reThis research was supported by Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research (7610068) provided by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. K. Shimono worked on this study while he was at the Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, as a visiting researcher from the Department of Information Engineering and Logistics, Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine. The authors wish to thank Atsuki Higashiyama, two anonymous reviewers, and the editor for their critical review and helpful comments on an earlier version ofthe manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to K. Shimono, Department ofinformation Processing Engineering and Logistics, Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine, Ettchujima 2-1-6, Koto-ku, Tokyo, Japan, 136 (e-mail: shimono@ipc.tosho-u.ac...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wheatstone—Panum limiting case: Occlusion, camouflage, and vergence-induced disparity cues

Shimono

Tam

Nakamizo

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As discussed above, free eye movement would have allowed for the use of a stimulus with a greater depth interval, but steady fixation was required for the purpose of this experiment because visual direction is known to depend on eye position (e.g., Ono & Mapp, 1995). The results of Experiment 1 showed that the stimuli on the nonfixated plane were perceptually displaced in two opposite directions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 62%

Leonardo's constraint: Two opaque objects cannot be seen in the same direction.

Ono

Lillakas²,

Grove³

et al. 2003

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given Leonardo's constraint that 2 opaque objects cannot be seen in the same direction, how are the regions of objects occluded to 1 eye included in perception? To answer this question, the authors presented 3-dimensional stimuli, similar to the ones that concerned Leonardo, and measured the visual directions of their monocular and binocular regions. When the distance between near and far objects was large, the nonfixated object was seen as double and blurry. Leonardo's constraint was met by seeing the near object as double and transparent or the distant object as double and superimposed. When the distance between near and far objects was small, the constraint was met by a perceptual displacement and compression of parts of the nonfixated object.Leonardo da Vinci considered a painter's task to be the reproduction of the visual world onto canvas, and being a painter himself, he was interested in discovering nature's laws to apply them to his work (Richter, 1952). In searching for these laws, Leonardo noted that when looking with two eyes one can (a) see around and behind a small near object, thereby seeing more of both the near object and the background than is possible with either eye alone, and (b) see more through an aperture than when looking with one eye only. On the basis of these observations, he concluded that it is impossible for a painter to depict on canvas what he sees with two eyes. (See the caption of Figure 1 for a direct quote from Leonardo's notebooks.) In this article, we argue that it is also impossible for a human observer to see all objects in the visual world in their correct location at any given moment. This is so because the visual system, like a painter, cannot represent two objects as being in the same direction.Because of its implications for depth perception, Leonardo's insight received some attention from early vision researchers and has recently seen a revival of interest by researchers. Wheatstone (1838) speculated that the concept of retinal disparity (two retinal images falling on slightly different positions in the two eyes) would have forced itself upon Leonardo if he had considered a cube instead of a sphere as the small near object shown in Figure 1. The view to each eye is noticeably different when viewing a cube rather than a sphere because of the corners of the cube. In reviewing early work on binocular vision, Boring (1942) discussed Leonardo's notes with respect to Wheatstone's discovery of retinal disparity as a cue to depth and coined the term Leonardo's paradox. According to Boring, the stimulus situation depicted in Figure 1 produces a paradox, because all of the background behind the sphere is seen even though the near object (sphere) is opaque. Without addressing the issue of transparency raised by Boring, recent researchers have shown that depth perception can depend on monocularly seen areas that lack retinal disparity (e.g

show abstract

“…As such, the work of Wells, Towne, and LeConte should now be recognized. In doing so, one must expand the credit for the laws of visual direction now named Wells-Hering laws (Ono & Mapp, 1995) to Wells-Towne-Hering-LeConte laws, at least in thought. Naming all four is cumbersome, and "laws of visual direction" may suffice, but when so named or referred, all four should be acknowledged.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The lost direction in binocular vision: The neglected signs posted by Wells, Towne, and Leconte

Wade

Ono

Mapp

2005

J History Behavioral Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of vision have informed theories first in philosophy and then in psychology. Over the centuries, an increasing number of phenomena have been enlisted to refute or reinforce particular theories. Nowhere has this been more evident than in binocular vision. How we see a single world with two eyes is one of the oldest and most consistently studied topics in vision research. It has been discussed at least since the time of Aristotle and it has been examined experimentally since the second century, when Ptolemy defined lines of visual correspondence for the two eyes. Prior to Wheatstone's invention of the stereoscope in the 1830s, binocular vision had been studied in terms of visual directions. The stereoscope established distance (or depth) as well as direction as dimensions of binocular vision. Subsequently, depth rather than direction has been the principal concern of students of vision, and texts in English devoted to analyses of direction rather than depth have been neglected. We examine the experiments on binocular visual direction conducted by Wells before Wheatstone, and by Towne and LeConte after him, and discuss the reasons for their neglect.

show abstract

A Restatement and Modification of Wells-Hering's Laws of Visual Direction

Cited by 50 publications

References 36 publications

Wheatstone—Panum limiting case: Occlusion, camouflage, and vergence-induced disparity cues

Wheatstone—Panum limiting case: Occlusion, camouflage, and vergence-induced disparity cues

Leonardo's constraint: Two opaque objects cannot be seen in the same direction.

The lost direction in binocular vision: The neglected signs posted by Wells, Towne, and Leconte

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About