The initial effects of hyperstereopsis on visual perception in helicopter pilots flying with see-through helmet-mounted displays

Priot, Anne-Emmanuelle; Vacher, Anthony; Vienne, Cyril; Neveu, Pascaline; Roumes, Corinne

doi:10.1016/j.displa.2017.11.002

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But we have already addressed Rogers' vertical disparity explanation in the context of Fig.11 and Fig.12, whilst Helmholtz's vergence explanation is subject to three key concerns: First, it over-predicts the phenomenon: We do not get an impression of miniaturisation when we look at a photograph with near vergence. Second, it under-predicts the phenomenon: The effects of telestereoscopic viewing can be experienced over hundreds of metres (see Sacks, 2010, on viewing St Paul's Cathedral) which, even taking into account the change in the optical geometry by the increase in interpupillary distance, would still place the objects outside vergence's effective range of 2m.Third,Priot, Laboissière, Sillan, Roumes, & Prablanc (2010) find that when vergence is isolated in telestereoscopic viewing, subjects adapt their vergence rather than report a miniaturisation of visual space (for Priot's further investigations of telestereoscopic adaption seePriot, Laboissière, Plantier, Prablanc, & Roumes, 2011;Priot, Neveu, Philippe, & Roumes, 2012;Priot et al, 2015;Priot, Vacher, Vienne, Neveu, & Roumes, 2018).…”

mentioning

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

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We See Scale?

Linton¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This effect has been attributed to vergence by Helmholtz ([ 51 , 52 ]; [ 31 ], p. 310) and Rogers ([ 53 , 54 ]), since the eyes need to rotate more to fixate on the same physical distance (cf. my alternative account in [ 11 ], discussed below), and has been extensively studied in the military research (where helicopter pilots often view the world through cameras with increased interpupillary separation, see [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Vergence Affect Perceived Size?

Linton

2021

Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Kepler (1604) and Descartes (1637), it has been suggested that ‘vergence’ (the angular rotation of the eyes) plays a key role in size constancy. However, this has never been tested divorced from confounding cues such as changes in the retinal image. In our experiment, participants viewed a target which grew or shrank in size over 5 s. At the same time, the fixation distance specified by vergence was reduced from 50 to 25 cm. The question was whether this change in vergence affected the participants’ judgements of whether the target grew or shrank in size? We found no evidence of any effect, and therefore no evidence that eye movements affect perceived size. If this is correct, then our finding has three implications. First, perceived size is much more reliant on cognitive influences than previously thought. This is consistent with the argument that visual scale is purely cognitive in nature (Linton, 2017; 2018). Second, it leads us to question whether the vergence modulation of V1 contributes to size constancy. Third, given the interaction between vergence, proprioception, and the retinal image in the Taylor illusion, it leads us to ask whether this cognitive approach could also be applied to multisensory integration.

show abstract

Does Vergence Affect Perceived Size?

Linton

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vergence (the angular rotation of the eyes) is thought to provide essential distance information for size constancy (perceiving an object as having a constant physical size). Evidence for this comes from the fact that a target with a constant retinal size appears to shrink as the rotation of the eyes increases (indicating that the target has reduced in distance). This reduction in perceived size is supposed to maintain a constant perception of physical size in natural viewing conditions by cancelling out the increasing size of the retinal image as an object moves closer. Whilst this hypothesis has been extensively tested over the last 200 years, it has always been tested in the presence of confounding cues such as a changing retinal image or cognitive cues to distance.Testing members of the public with normal vision, we control for these confounding cues and find no evidence of vergence size constancy. Statement of RelevanceThis work has important implications for the neural basis of size constancy and for multisensory integration. First, leading work on the neural basis of size constancy cannot differentiate between recurrent processes in V1 (based on triangulation cues, such as vergence) and top-down processing (based on pictorial cues). Since our work challenges the existence of vergence size constancy, and therefore much of the basis of the recurrent processing account, our work indicates that top-down processing is likely to have a much more important role in size constancy than previously thought.Second, vergence size constancy is thought to be largely responsible for the apparent integration of the retinal image with proprioceptive distance information from the hand in the Taylor illusion (an afterimage of the hand viewed in darkness appears to shrink as the observer's hand is moved closer). This explanation for the Taylor illusion is challenged, and a cognitive account proposed instead.

show abstract

The initial effects of hyperstereopsis on visual perception in helicopter pilots flying with see-through helmet-mounted displays

Cited by 7 publications

References 41 publications

Do We See Scale?

Do We See Scale?

Does Vergence Affect Perceived Size?

Does Vergence Affect Perceived Size?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About