Detecting binocular 3D motion in static 3D noise: no effect of viewing distance

Harris, Julie M.; Sumnall, Jane H.

doi:10.1163/156856801741332

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, oscillatory motion thresholds are lower when the half-images oscillate in-phase (translation) compared to when they are in anti-phase (i.e., motion in depth) (Sumnall & Harris, 2002;Tyler, 1971;Tyler & Cavanagh, 1991;Westheimer, 1990). Similarly, the half-images of a motion-in-depth stimulus (equal and opposite lateral motions) are much more easily detected amidst noise than their fused combination (Harris, McKee, & Watamaniuk, 1998;Harris & Sumnall, 2000). McKee and Harrad (1993) found that monocular vernier acuity was much higher than when the same vernier target was interocularly paired with an offset vernier target that produced a standing disparity of 4 arcmin between the upper and lower lines of the target.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suppression of monocular visual direction under fused binocular stimulation: Evoked potential measurements

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were recorded in response to a vernier onset/offset target presented to one eye that was combined with matching static targets in the other eye. The monocular response was dominated by a negative peak at 160 ms that occurred after a set of offsets was introduced into a one-dimensional random bar pattern. The static targets produced no discernible VEP response by themselves, but when fused binocularly with the oscillating vernier target, they produced shifts in perceived visual direction that influenced the VEP response. A vernier target fused with static vertical bars was perceived to alternate in depth between a flat surface and one broken into two interleaved surfaces. The response to this "surface-breaking" was as large or larger than the response to the monocular vernier offset. This response was much reduced when the oscillating vernier was fused with a static offset vernier (5' offset) that produced a percept of segregated regions moving in depth. Apparently, the VEP is strongly driven by shifts in visual direction that alter surface, texture, or contour contiguity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suppression of monocular visual direction under fused binocular stimulation: Evoked potential measurements

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is evidence that the human visual is sensitive to the retinal binocular disparity, and its change when objects move, which we express in angular units, rather than being specifically sensitive to the depths between points or objects in the world [4][5][6] . In human vision, we therefore define binocular disparity in terms of angles subtended at the eye, rather than in display-screen units, such as pixels.…”

Section: Background: Binocular Disparity As Defined In Human Vision Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Monocular zones in stereoscopic scenes: A useful source of information for human binocular vision?

Harris

2010

SPIE Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When an object is closer to an observer than the background, the small differences between right and left eye views are interpreted by the human brain as depth. This basic ability of the human visual system, called stereopsis, lies at the core of all binocular three-dimensional (3-D) perception and related technological display development. To achieve stereopsis, it is traditionally assumed that corresponding locations in the right and left eye's views must first be matched, then the relative differences between right and left eye locations are used to calculate depth. But this is not the whole story. At every object-background boundary, there are regions of the background that only one eye can see because, in the other eye's view, the foreground object occludes that region of background. Such monocular zones do not have a corresponding match in the other eye's view and can thus cause problems for depth extraction algorithms. In this paper I will discuss evidence, from our knowledge of human visual perception, illustrating that monocular zones do not pose problems for our human visual systems, rather, our visual systems can extract depth from such zones. I review the relevant human perception literature in this area, and show some recent data aimed at quantifying the perception of depth from monocular zones. The paper finishes with a discussion of the potential importance of considering monocular zones, for stereo display technology and depth compression algorithms.

show abstract

“…Harris, McKee, and Watamaniuk (1998) showed that the detection of motion-in-depth was more affected by disparity noise than was the detection of lateral motion, and they suggested that the detection of 3D motion was carried out by static disparity mechanisms rather than specific mechanisms sensitive to the change of disparity over time. Using the same paradigm, Harris and Sumnall (2000) showed that there was no effect of the viewing distance on the detection of 3D and 2D motion, suggesting that motion-in-depth detection is based on relative and not absolute signals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Disparity-based stereomotion detectors are poorly suited to track 2D motion

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study was conducted to examine the time required to process lateral motion and motion-in-depth for luminance- and disparity-defined stimuli. In a 2 × 2 design, visual stimuli oscillated sinusoidally in either 2D (moving left to right at a constant disparity of 9 arcmin) or 3D (looming and receding in depth between 6 and 12 arcmin) and were defined either purely by disparity (change of disparity over time [CDOT]) or by a combination of disparity and luminance (providing CDOT and interocular velocity differences [IOVD]). Visual stimuli were accompanied by an amplitude-modulated auditory tone that oscillated at the same rate and whose phase was varied to find the latency producing synchronous perception of the auditory and visual oscillations. In separate sessions, oscillations of 0.7 and 1.4 Hz were compared. For the combined CDOT + IOVD stimuli (disparity and luminance [DL] conditions), audiovisual synchrony required a 50 ms auditory lag, regardless of whether the motion was 2D or 3D. For the CDOT-only stimuli (disparity-only [DO] conditions), we found that a similar lag (~60 ms) was needed to produce synchrony for the 3D motion condition. However, when the CDOT-only stimuli oscillated along a 2D path, the auditory lags required for audiovisual synchrony were much longer: 170 ms for the 0.7 Hz condition, and 90 ms for the 1.4 Hz condition. These results suggest that stereomotion detectors based on CDOT are well suited to tracking 3D motion, but are poorly suited to tracking 2D motion.

show abstract

Detecting binocular 3D motion in static 3D noise: no effect of viewing distance

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Suppression of monocular visual direction under fused binocular stimulation: Evoked potential measurements

Suppression of monocular visual direction under fused binocular stimulation: Evoked potential measurements

Monocular zones in stereoscopic scenes: A useful source of information for human binocular vision?

Disparity-based stereomotion detectors are poorly suited to track 2D motion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About