Stereoscopic depth constancy

Guan, Phillip; Banks, Martin S.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0253

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been four responses to this shape inconstancy: (1) Quarantine it to specific tasks / contexts (Glennerster et al, 1996;Bradshaw et al, 2000). (2) Eradicate it by introducing other depth cues (Scarfe & Hibbard, 2013;Guan & Banks, 2016). (3) Suggest that stereo-depth and 3D shape are two different things (Hibbard, 2008;Vishwanath, 2010;Vishwanath, 2014).…”

Section: Fifthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We See Scale?

Linton¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual system is supposed to extract distance information from the environment in order to scale the size and distance of objects in the visual scene. The purpose of this article is to challenge this account in three stages: First, I identify three shortcomings of the literature on vergence as our primary cue to near distances. Second, I present the results from two experiments that control for these shortcomings, but at the cost of eradicating vergence and accommodation as effective distance cues (average gain of y = 0.161x + 38.64). Third, I argue that if all our cues to distance are either (a) ineffective (vergence; accommodation; motion parallax), (b) merely relative (angular size; diplopia), or (c) merely cognitive (familiar size; vertical disparity), then the visual system does not appear to extract absolute distance information, and we should be open to the possibility that vision functions without scale.Keywords: vergence, accommodation, visual distance, visual scale, visual cognition IntroductionScale has two components: size and distance. Specifically, it is concerned with differentiating a small object up close from a large object far away, even though both may have the same visual angle. Ptolemy (c.160 AD) first articulated visual scale in these terms, arguing that size wasn't just a function of visual angle (vs. Euclid, c.300 BC), but visual angle appropriately scaled by distance information (see Hatfield, 2002). But the problem is where does the distance information come from? Ptolemy could rely on 'extramission': the length of the rays emitted, and then returning, to the eye. As an 'intromission' theorist, al-Haytham (c.1021) had no such luxury and relied on familiar size instead. But Descartes (1637) regarded familiar size as a merely cognitive cue and so, along with Kepler (1604), outlined three optical / physiological cues that could plausibly replace Ptolemy's 'extramission' thesis: 1. vergence (the angles of the eyes), 2. accommodation (the curvature of the intraocular lens), and 3. motion parallax (the change in the visual scene from the motion of the observer). (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.The copyright holder for this preprint . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/371948 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online 2 VergenceThe visual system's ability to extract distance information from vergence was one of visual psychophysics' earliest concerns, and was answered affirmatively by Hueck (1838) (2001) presented subjects with a small 0.57° disc in darkness for 5s, then after 5s in complete darkness asked subjects to match a visible reference to the disc's distance.They found subjects were close to veridical between 20cm and 40cm, but distances were increasingly underestimated beyond that: 60cm was judged to be 50cm, and 80cm judged to be 56cm. Nonetheless, they concluded that their results were consistent with , at least in reaching space: '…the results of our experiment indicate that vergence can be u...

show abstract

Section: Fifthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We See Scale?

Linton¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Monocular cues include retinal image features (e.g., shading, texture, defocus blur, perspective, optical expansion, kinetic depth cues, motion parallax, etc. ; Guan & Banks, 2016;Held, Cooper, & Banks, 2012;Zannoli, Love, Narain, & Banks, 2016;Zannoli & Mamassian, 2011), and ocular accommodation (Guan & Banks, 2016;. Binocular cues include retinal disparity, inter-ocular velocity differences Nefs, O'Hare, & Harris, 2010), change in disparity over time , ocular vergence (Mon-Williams & Tresilian, 1999;Mon-Williams, Tresilian, & Roberts, 2000) and version angles (Backus, Banks, Van Ee, & Crowell, 1999;Banks & Backus, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misperception of motion in depth originates from an incomplete transformation of retinal signals

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depth perception requires the use of an internal model of the eye-head geometry to infer distance from binocular retinal images and extraretinal 3D eye-head information, particularly ocular vergence. Similarly, for motion in depth perception, gaze angle is required to correctly interpret the spatial direction of motion from retinal images; however, it is unknown whether the brain can make adequate use of extraretinal version and vergence information to correctly transform binocular retinal motion into 3D spatial coordinates. Here we tested this hypothesis by asking participants to reconstruct the spatial trajectory of an isolated disparity stimulus moving in depth either peri-foveally or peripherally while participants' gaze was oriented at different vergence and version angles. We found large systematic errors in the perceived motion trajectory that reflected an intermediate reference frame between a purely retinal interpretation of binocular retinal motion (not accounting for veridical vergence and version) and the spatially correct motion. We quantify these errors with a 3D reference frame model accounting for target, eye, and head position upon motion percept encoding. This model could capture the behavior well, revealing that participants tended to underestimate their version by up to 17%, overestimate their vergence by up to 22%, and underestimate the overall change in retinal disparity by up to 64%, and that the use of extraretinal information depended on retinal eccentricity. Since such large perceptual errors are not observed in everyday viewing, we suggest that both monocular retinal cues and binocular extraretinal signals are required for accurate real-world motion in depth perception.

show abstract

“…The dot width in ASTEROID v0.9 was 18 arcmin, much larger than usual in random‐dot‐style stereograms, where typical dot widths are 2–6 arcmin 10,32–38 . In ASTEROID v1.0, dot width was reduced to 6 arcmin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The dot width in ASTEROID v0.9 was 18 arcmin, much larger than usual in random-dot-style stereograms, where typical dot widths are 2-6 arcmin. 10,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] In ASTEROID v1.0, dot Table 1. Typical average values in a healthy young-adult population, and test/retest repeatability, of different ASTEROID versions as reported in this and previous studies.…”

Section: Dot Size and Visual Acuitymentioning

confidence: 99%

ASTEROID stereotest v1.0: lower stereo thresholds using smaller, denser and faster dots

Read

Wong

Yek

et al. 2020

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In 2019, we described ASTEROID, a new stereotest run on a 3D tablet computer which involves a four-alternative disparity detection task on a dynamic random-dot stereogram. Stereo thresholds measured with ASTEROID were well correlated with, but systematically higher than (by a factor of around 1.5), thresholds measured with previous laboratory stereotests or the Randot Preschool clinical stereotest. We speculated that this might be due to the relatively large, sparse dots used in ASTEROID v0.9. Here, we introduce and test the stereo thresholds and test-repeatability of the new ASTEROID v1.0, which uses precomputed images to allow stereograms made up of much smaller, denser dots. Methods: Stereo thresholds and test/retest repeatability were tested and compared between the old and new versions of ASTEROID (n = 75) and the Randot Circles (n = 31) stereotest, in healthy young adults. Results: Thresholds on ASTEROID v1.0 are lower (better) than on ASTEROID v0.9 by a factor of 1.4, and do not differ significantly from thresholds on the Randot Circles. Thresholds were roughly log-normally distributed with a mean of 1.54 log 10 arcsec (35 arcsec) on ASTEROID v1.0 compared to 1.70 log 10 arcsec (50 arcsec) on ASTEROID v0.9. The standard deviation between observers was the same for both versions, 0.32 log 10 arcsec, corresponding to a factor of 2 above and below the mean. There was no difference between the versions in their test/ retest repeatability, with 95% coefficient of repeatability = 0.46 log 10 arcsec (a factor of 2.9 or 1.5 octaves) and a Pearson correlation of 0.8 (comparable to other clinical stereotests). Conclusion: The poorer stereo thresholds previously reported with ASTEROID v0.9 appear to have been due to the relatively large, coarse dots and low density used, rather than to some other aspect of the technology. Employing the small dots and high density used in ASTEROID v1.0, thresholds and test/retest repeatability are similar to other clinical stereotests.

show abstract

Stereoscopic depth constancy

Cited by 16 publications

References 46 publications

Do We See Scale?

Do We See Scale?

Misperception of motion in depth originates from an incomplete transformation of retinal signals

ASTEROID stereotest v1.0: lower stereo thresholds using smaller, denser and faster dots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About