Detection threshold differences to crossed and uncrossed disparities

Manning, Mark; Finlay, David; Neill, R.A.; Frost, Barry G.

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(87)90174-x

Cited by 60 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patterson, et al, 1995) and spatial (e.g. Manning, et al, 1987) limits, tolerances for polarity reversal , and rates of development (Birch, Gwiazda, & Held, 1982), for various such mechanisms. However, such findings have also been interpreted as consistent with a model that does not posit distinct disparity pooling mechanisms (Landers & Cormack, 1997).…”

Section: Functional Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to use individual differences to isolate functional organization, biology, and utility of visual functions; with illustrative proposals for stereopsis

Wilmer¹

2008

Spatial Vis

109

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a call for greater use of individual differences in the basic science of visual perception. Individual differences yield insights into visual perception's functional organization, underlying biological/environmental mechanisms, and utility. I first explain the general approach advocated and where it comes from. Second, I describe five principles central to learning about the nature of visual perception through individual differences. Third, I elaborate on the use of individual differences to gain insights into the three areas mentioned above (function, biology/environment, utility), in each case describing the approach advocated, presenting model examples from the literature, and laying out illustrative research proposals for the case of stereopsis.

show abstract

Section: Functional Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to use individual differences to isolate functional organization, biology, and utility of visual functions; with illustrative proposals for stereopsis

Wilmer¹

2008

Spatial Vis

109

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As pointed out by Manning et al (1987), there may be inherent differences between detecting a shape in front ofa background plane versus detecting a plane behind an aperture of some shape. Other research does suggest that disparity interpolation is more efficient for surfaces of crossed disparity than for those of uncrossed disparity (Yang & Blake, 1995), attesting to the complex nature of such stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Manning, Finlay, Neill, and Frost (1987) measured stimulus duration thresholds for crossed and uncrossed disparities at various positions in the visual field. At every position they tested, longer durations were required to detect uncrossed disparities than crossed disparities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetries and errors in perception of depth from disparity suggest a multicomponent model of disparity processing

Landers

Cormack

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, asymmetries between the processing of crossed and uncrossed disparities were investigated. The target was a luminance-defined circle concentric to a fixation mark, viewed stereoscopically on a computer monitor for 105msec, Fifteen disparities were presented according to the method of constant stimuli. Observers indicated the apparent direction of target depth relative to fixation. All experiments measured both the accuracy and latency of this response. Experiment 1 showed fewer errors and shorter reaction times for identifying crossed disparities. Experiments 2 and 3 replicated Experiment 1 and also showed that observers may often perceive a target in the direction opposite that prescribed by the disparity information. Wepropose that the asymmetries and reversals result from differences in computation of sign, not of magnitude. This notion is consistent with a scheme of continuous disparity tuning and accounts for such asymmetries and errors without positing disparity pooling mechanisms.A fundamental issue in the study ofstereopsis concerns the manner in which retinal disparities are processed by the visual system. The two most popular schemes involve either a small number of relatively independent channels (or pools ofdisparity detectors), or a large number ofdistinct yet continuously distributed disparity detectors.The first scheme was proposed by Richards (1971) on the basis of experiments that revealed anomalous individual differences, or "stereoanornalies," in disparity processing. Richards found that over half of the observers he tested were insensitive to either crossed or uncrossed disparities in local stereograms. In addition, he observed that, for any observer, two very different disparities of the same sign could signal the same depth percept. Some observers even exhibited an apparent reversal of the disparity sign information: The entire range ofdisparities (crossed and uncrossed) elicited depth in only one direction. Based on these findings, Richards posited at least two distinct and independent pools of integrated disparity detectors (crossed and uncrossed). That is, Richards presumed that, since some observers appeared insensitive to the entire range of disparities of a particular direction, the disparity detectors for that direction were pooled into a single (malfunctioning) mechanism. Moreover, the pheThis work was supported by NIH/NEI EY 10303 and AFOSR F49620-93-I-0307. We wish to thank S. B. Stevenson for his helpful comments regarding the results and R. P.O'Shea, R. Patterson, and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments regarding an earlier

show abstract

“…In line with Previc's theoretical model, most investigators have shown that crossed-disparity (i.e., near) stimuli are better processed in the LVF, whereas uncrossed-disparity (i.e., far) stimuli are detected more readily in the UVF (Breitmeyer, Julesz & Kropfi, 1975;Breitmeyer, Weinstein & Previc, 1992;Julesz, Breitmeyer & Kropfi, 1976; but see Manning, Finlay, Neill & Frost, 1987). This trend may also interact with an overall advantage for near stimuli (Grabowska, 1983;Harwerth & Boltz, 1979;Lasley, Ktvlin, Rich & Flynn, 1984;Mustillo, 1985) and left-right hemifield differences in global depth perception (Breitmeyer et al, 1992;Durnford & Kimura, 1971;Grabowska, 1983;Manning et al, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…This trend may also interact with an overall advantage for near stimuli (Grabowska, 1983;Harwerth & Boltz, 1979;Lasley, Ktvlin, Rich & Flynn, 1984;Mustillo, 1985) and left-right hemifield differences in global depth perception (Breitmeyer et al, 1992;Durnford & Kimura, 1971;Grabowska, 1983;Manning et al, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%