Ocular Prevalence: Difference Between Crossed and Uncrossed Disparities of Stereo Objects

Jaschinski, Wolfgang; Schroth, Volkhard

doi:10.1080/09273970802451059

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the opposite observation was made by Larson who investigated the difference in stereoacuity between crossed and uncrossed disparities in 15 subjects using Frisby and TNO tests [ 36 ]. In addition, Jaschinski and Schroth examined 11 subjects with normal vision and a stereo resolution of less than 100 arcsec, and only a minority of them showed a difference between crossed and uncrossed disparities [ 37 ]. In our study, no significant difference was found between crossed and uncrossed disparities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology

Jin

Sun

et al. 2016

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo determine the stereoacuity threshold with a 3D laptop equipped with 3D shutter glasses, and to evaluate the effect of different shape and size of test symbols and different type of disparities to stereoacuity.MethodsThirty subjects with a visual acuity in each eye of at least 0 logMAR and a stereoacuity of at least 32 arcsec (as assessed in Fly Stereo Acuity Test) were recruited. Three target symbols—tumbling "E", tumbling "C", and "□"—were displayed, each with six different sizes representing a visual acuity ranging from 0.5 to 0 logMAR when tested at 4.1 m, and with both crossed and uncrossed disparities. Two test systems were designed - fixed distance of 4.1 m and one for variable distance. The former has disparities ranging from 10 to 1000 arcsec. Each subject completed 36 trials to investigate the effect of different symbol sizes and shapes, and disparity types on stereoacuity. In the variable distance system, each subject was tested 12 times for the same purposes, both proximally and distally (the point where the 3D effect just appears and where it just disappears respectively), and the mean value was calculated from the mean proximal and distal distances.ResultsNo significant difference was found among the groups in the fixed distance test system (Kruskal-Wallis test; Chi-square = 29.844, P = 0.715). Similarly, no significant difference was found in the variable distance system (Kruskal-Wallis test; proximal: Chi-square = 5.687, P = 0.338; distal: Chi-square = 5.898, P = 0.316; mean: Chi-square = 6.152, P = 0.292).ConclusionsEvaluating stereoacuity using this measurement system was convenient and effective. Changes in target shape and size and disparity types had no significant effect on stereoacuity. It would be helpful to choose optimal targets according to different purposes using computer-assisted 3D measurements.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12886-016-0223-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology

Jin

Sun

et al. 2016

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the current finding are limited in this respect, too. Yet, there are findings suggesting that crossed and uncrossed stimulus properties do not necessarily lead to differential visual processing (Jaschinski and Schroth, 2008). Furthermore, the current results are very similar to a related study in which participants fixated the midway depth plane (Plewan and Rinkenauer, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fast and Forceful: Modulation of Response Activation Induced by Shifts of Perceived Depth in Virtual 3D Space

Plewan

Rinkenauer

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reaction time (RT) can strongly be influenced by a number of stimulus properties. For instance, there was converging evidence that perceived size rather than physical (i.e., retinal) size constitutes a major determinant of RT. However, this view has recently been challenged since within a virtual three-dimensional (3D) environment retinal size modulation failed to influence RT. In order to further investigate this issue in the present experiments response force (RF) was recorded as a supplemental measure of response activation in simple reaction tasks. In two separate experiments participants’ task was to react as fast as possible to the occurrence of a target located close to the observer or farther away while the offset between target locations was increased from Experiment 1 to Experiment 2. At the same time perceived target size (by varying the retinal size across depth planes) and target type (sphere vs. soccer ball) were modulated. Both experiments revealed faster and more forceful reactions when targets were presented closer to the observers. Perceived size and target type barely affected RT and RF in Experiment 1 but differentially affected both variables in Experiment 2. Thus, the present findings emphasize the usefulness of RF as a supplement to conventional RT measurement. On a behavioral level the results confirm that (at least) within virtual 3D space perceived object size neither strongly influences RT nor RF. Rather the relative position within egocentric (body-centered) space presumably indicates an object’s behavioral relevance and consequently constitutes an important modulator of visual processing.

show abstract

“…Bold type denotes the advantageous contralateral projection from a particular eye to the op- are equally likely to be preferred in different individuals (Kommerell et al, 2003). Most people exhibit some level of ocular prevalence (Ehrenstein, Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen, & Jaschinski, 2005;Erkelens, Muijs, & van Ee, 1996;Haase, 1995;Heinrich, Kromeier, Bach, & Kommerell, 2005;Jaschinski & Schroth, 2008;Kommerell et al, 2003;Sachsenweger, 1958). What we wish to capture by the term ocular prevalence is the "graded quantification of the balance between the eyes" (Kommerell et al, 2003(Kommerell et al, , p. 1397) that is achieved in conditions of fusion with no diplopia; such a quantitative, graded difference in cortical activation has been reported for dominance (Rombouts, Barkhof, Sprenger, Valk, & Scheltens, 1996), at least partly grounded in anatomy and physiology.…”

Section: Advantages Of Uncrossed Rds In Nonreading Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocular foveation in reading

Shillcock

Roberts

Kreiner

et al. 2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a theory of foveation in normal binocular reading. We consider the pervasive, nontrivial binocular fixation disparities (FDs) observed in reading and relate them to the computational problem of resolving retinal disparities in depth perception. We infer that the right eye's fixation being to the right of the left eye's in reading promotes binocular fusion in challenging conditions. We then show a different (nonfusional) processing advantage for the right eye's fixation being to the left of the left eye's in reading conditions in which binocular fusion is assured, by modeling the combined influence of foveal splitting, contralateral preference, ocular prevalence, and fixation disparity. This synthesis of anatomically grounded research in different aspects of visual processing produces a theory of foveation in reading that matches current data and makes testable predictions.

show abstract

Ocular Prevalence: Difference Between Crossed and Uncrossed Disparities of Stereo Objects

Abstract: Ocular prevalence occurs frequently among observers with normal binocular vision, but only a minority of these observers show a difference between crossed and uncrossed disparities of the stereo object. It is unclear whether this difference bears clinical importance.

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology

Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology

Fast and Forceful: Modulation of Response Activation Induced by Shifts of Perceived Depth in Virtual 3D Space

Binocular foveation in reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About