Monocular and Binocular Estimations of Distance When Knowledge of the Relevant Space is Absent

Crannell, C. W.; Peters, Gregory L.

doi:10.1080/00223980.1970.9916834

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though all of these shared a common methodological approach (an attempt to isolate convergence as a source of information about distance), their results were astonishingly contradictory. Some authors asserted that convergence improved distance discrimination and estimation (Wundt 1862;Baird 1903;Swenson 1932;Grant 1942;Gogel 1962;Komoda and Ono 1974;Foley 1978), whereas others argued that convergence did not serve as a cue of distance (Bappert 1923;Heinemann et al 1959;Crannell and Peters 1970). Surprisingly, there was a third group of experiments in which some observers were able to use convergence to assess a distance while others were unable to do so (Gogel 1961a(Gogel , 1961bRichards and Miller 1969).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…It is interesting to note that most of the investigators who dealt with real objects as test stimuli arrived at negative conclusions concerning convergence as a cue for distance (Hillebrandt 1894;Bourdon 1902;Bappert 1923;Crannell and Peters 1970), whereas the researchers who believed that convergence played an essential role in perceiving distance derived their conclusions mainly from stereoscopic vision experiments (Swenson 1932;Grant 1942) or from experiments with the so-called 'wallpaper phenomenon' (Lie 1965;Ono et al 1971).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Convergence as a Cue for Distance

Logvinenko

Белопольский

1994

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binocular eye movements were measured in subjects experiencing the wallpaper illusion. It was found that a physical displacement of the fixation point by more than 1 m out of the plane of apparent localisation of the strips had no influence on the illusory location of these strips. Hence, illusory localisation in the wallpaper illusion is independent of the actual magnitude of the subject's convergence angle, once the illusion has come into existence. This result suggests that convergence does not serve as a source of information about apparent distance, at least in the wallpaper illusion.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Convergence as a Cue for Distance

Logvinenko

Белопольский

1994

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As might be expected, the particular target used must constitute an effective blur stimulus for accommodation to provide changing information as a function of target distance. A very poor stimulus such as a featureless surface or a pinpoint of light, which results in little or no departure from the tonic accommodative level (Leibowitz and Owens, 1975;Owens and Leibowitz, 1976), fails to influence monocular judgements of distance (Kunnepas, 1968;Crannel and Peters, 1970) or size (Heineman, Tulving and Nachmias, 1959;Crannel and Peters, 1970) in the absence of changes in target brightness or angular extent. In contrast, a target that is highiy effective in stimulating accommodation can produce c h i s t e n t changes in monocular apparent distance under similar conditions (Fisher and Ciuffreda, 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of accommodative hysteresis on apparent distance

Fisher

Ciuffreda

1989

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of accommodative hysteresis on monocular distance perception was examined in 18 visually normal young adults. Tonic accommodation and apparent distance were measured immediately before and after a 10 minute period of sustained focus at either the accommodative nearpoint or farpoint. Separate sessions were used for the two sustained focus conditions. On each session, apparent distance was assessed for both a highly effective and a non-effective accommodative target viewed at a constant optical distance of 3D. Sustained focus at the nearpoint resulted in a significant increase in the apparent distance of the highly effective accommodative target, as well as in tonic accommodation. Sustained focus at the farpoint yielded a slight decrease in tonic accommodation, but no significant alteration in the apparent distance of the highly effective accommodative target. No tendency for change in the apparent distance of the non-effective accommodative target was observed under either the nearpoint or farpoint condition. The results suggest that accommodative distance information is linked to the level of monocular blur-driven accommodative innervation necessary for clarity of focus.

show abstract

“…In many experiments of depth perception, however, it has been found that the accuracy in the estimation of depth deteriorated when ordinary visual cues were absent (Crannell & Peters, 1970;Epstein & Landauer, 1969;Gogel, 1972;Kiinnapas, 1968). Kiinnapas (1968) reported that when a target was placed at any distance from 25 to 395 cm in a dark room, the subjects always estimated the target distance approximately 140 cm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accommodative response under reduced visual conditions

Iida

1983

Jpn. Psychol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the effects of luminance and visual depth cues on accommodation, the accommodation with decreased luminance was measured with a laser optometer under three visual conditions, a target in a full-cue visual field, a target in a dark room, and in an empty visual field without target. Four persons of 21 to 27 years old, with normal uncorrected visual acuity, served as subjects. The accommodation increased with decreased luminance in the fullcue visual field. In the empty visual field, however, the accommodation remained constant on a high level regardless of luminance levels. The results suggest that night myopia can be explained by the effect of reduction of depth cues caused by decreased luminance rather than the effect of luminance alone. There was no significant difference in accommodation between in the total darkness and in the bright empty field, and the mean accommodation under reduced cue conditions was found to be 2.06 diopters (focal distance was 49 cm).

show abstract

Monocular and Binocular Estimations of Distance When Knowledge of the Relevant Space is Absent

Cited by 15 publications

References 1 publication

Convergence as a Cue for Distance

Convergence as a Cue for Distance

The effect of accommodative hysteresis on apparent distance

Accommodative response under reduced visual conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About