An Objective Study of Binocular Vision

Understanding Attentional Modulation of Binocular Rivalry: A Framework Based on Biased Competition

“…Furthermore, simple physiological factors can cause changes in the rivalry switch rate. For example, the number of eye blinks is correlated with switch rate (Peckham, 1936), while paralyzing one eye can reduce its dominance during binocular rivalry (McDougall, 1903). These results reveal a simple, and arguably less interesting, link between eye blinks/eye movements and switch rates, and consequently, an easy way to willfully affect the rivalry alternation rate.…”

“…For instance, even a simple increase in the frequency of eye blinks can speed up rivalry (Peckham, 1936). Faster rivalry switching has also been linked to increasing instability of eye fixation (van Dam and van Ee, 2006) and increases in arousal (George, 1936).…”

The Position of the Eyes During Prism Vergence

“…Even with such artifacts, it is clear from the Maxwell spot experiment, however, that the angle of intersection of the lines of sight during a fusional movement may be different from the convergence angle of the targets by as much as 1.7 degrees. This is the order of magnitude reported by Tani, Ogle, Weaver, and Martens,5 if somewhat smaller than the maximum values reported by Peckham,6,7 Clark,1·2 and Stewart,3 using optical re¬ cordings.…”

“…If the positions of the eyes are recorded photographically1-5 or observed with a telescope 6,7 during the process of making a horizontal vergence movement, it can be demonstrated that the record of the relative position of the lines of sight of the two eyes may differ from the convergence angles of the test targets during single binocular fixation. The exact amount of this disparity differs according to the subject and the test conditions, but there is fairly good agreement that the order of magnitude is several degrees, i. e., much larger than the size usually postulated for Panum's fusional areas,8 On the basis of such evidence, Tani, Ogle, Weaver, and Martens5 have questioned the validity of optical measurements of eye movements by photographic or telescopic observation of details on the eyes themselves or of images from light reflected from the corneas.…”

Visual Apparent Movement Research: Review, 1935–1955, and Bibliography, 1955–1963

“…Gengerelli (1948) selectively stimulated retinal areas for vercical and horizontal AM and showed that with homonymous and heteronymous forms of cerebral excitation simultaneously present, the predominant direction of the AM had its base in the homonymous excitations. This variability is not surprising in light of Peckham's (1936) observation of f~~s i o n when disparate or noncorresponding retinal points were stimulated. Bridgman and Smith (1945) showed that v i s~~a l perception was not materially altered in patients with partial and complete section of the corpus callosum.…”