The range of fusible horizontal disparities around the empirical horopters

Grove, Philip M.; Harrold, Ashleigh

doi:10.1109/ic3d.2013.6732084

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous research (Brecher, 1942; Lyding, 1939; Rosch, 1943 as cited in Mitchell, 1966; Volkmann, 1859), we see smaller fusion limits for vertical disparities compared with measurements at the same locations for horizontal disparities shown in Experiment 1, with vertical fusion limits being approximately half of those reported for participants in Experiment 1. There is evidence of individual differences both in the size of Panum’s fusional range, which is consistent with the findings in Experiment 1, and general consensus that measurements of Panum’s fusional range differ between observers (Grove & Harrold, 2013; Harrold & Grove, 2015; Ogle, 1952).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Inspection of the graphs shows an increase in the size of Panum’s fusional range with an increase in eccentricity and shows that Panum’s fusional range is relatively stable across separations within each eccentricity. The figure does show variations across individuals in the size of Panum’s fusional range; however, individual variation is common in these measurements (DuWaer & van den Brink, 1981; Fender & Julesz, 1967; Grove & Harrold, 2013; Harrold & Grove, 2015; Mitchell, 1966; Ogle, 1955; Ogle & Prangen, 1953; Panum, 1858; Poggio & Poggio, 1984; Schor & Tyler, 1981).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The average of these two values is taken to be the boundary of Panum’s fusional range and is measured for crossed and uncrossed disparities. Researchers agree that Panum’s fusional range increases for targets located further in the periphery (Crone & Leuridian, 1973; Fischer, 1924; Grove & Harrold, 2013; Hampton & Kertesz, 1983; Harrold & Grove, 2015; Mitchell, 1966; Ogle, 1952; Ogle & Prangen, 1953; Palmer, 1961). However, studies measuring fusion limits as a function of eccentricity commonly use a central fixation point and disparate targets at various eccentricities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Size Increase in Panum’s Fusional Range Is Driven by Eccentricity and Not Separation

Harrold

Grove

2019

Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated that Panum’s fusional range increases in the periphery, and this increase is usually attributed to eccentricity. However, it is unclear whether the increase in the periphery is driven by eccentricity or separation between the stimulus and the central fixation marker. In Experiment 1, we independently measured the effects of eccentricity and stimulus separation on Panum’s fusional range for horizontal disparities. We observed significant increases in Panum’s range as eccentricity increased independently of stimulus separation. Experiment 2 revealed that the extent of Panum’s fusional range for vertical disparities increased with eccentricity independently of stimulus separation. Taken together, these results strongly support previously held conclusions that Panum’s fusional range for both horizontal and vertical disparities increases with increasing eccentricity and is little impacted by stimulus separation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Size Increase in Panum’s Fusional Range Is Driven by Eccentricity and Not Separation

Harrold

Grove

2019

Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is likely due to the fact that all measurements were taken above the fixation point. Recently, Grove and Ono (2012) and Grove and Harrold (2013) demonstrated that, for locations above and below the fixation point, fusional ranges are shifted such that Panum's fusional range is centred on the vertical horopter. Because the empirical vertical horopter is inclined top far (Grove et al, 2001;Nakayama, 1977;Schreiber et al, 2008), this would predict larger fusion thresholds for uncrossed disparities in the upper visual field than in the lower visual field and the opposite pattern would be predicted for crossed disparities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Stimulus Size on Stereoscopic Fusion Limits and Response Criteria

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stereoscopic fusion limit denotes the largest binocular disparity for which a single fused image is perceived. Several criteria can be employed when judging whether or not a stereoscopic display is fused, and this may be a factor contributing to a discrepancy in the literature. Schor, Wood, and Ogawa (1984 Vision Research, 24, 661-665) reported that fusion limits did not change as a function of bar width, while Roumes, Plantier, Menu, and Thorpe (1997 Human Factors, 39, 359-373) reported higher fusion limits for larger stimuli than for smaller stimuli. Our investigation suggests that differing criteria between the studies could contribute to this discrepancy. In experiment 1 we measured horizontal and vertical disparity fusion limits for thin bars and for the edge of an extended surface, allowing observers to use the criterion of either diplopia or rivalry when evaluating fusion for all stimuli. Fusion limits were equal for thin bars and extended surfaces in both horizontal and vertical disparity conditions. We next measured fusion limits for a range of bar widths and instructed observers to indicate which criterion they employed on each trial. Fusion limits were constant across all stimulus widths. However, there was a sharp change in criterion from diplopia to rivalry when the angular extent of the bar width exceeded about twice the fusion limit, expressed in angular terms. We conclude that stereoscopic fusion limits do not depend on stimulus size in this context, but the criterion for fusion does. Therefore, the criterion for fusion should be clearly defined in any study measuring stereoscopic fusion limits.

show abstract

“…Where such attempts failed, experienced stereophotographers who were naïve as to the study’s hypotheses were recruited to perform precise stereoscopic adjustments using the same set of transformations. Lastly, the size of each stereoscopic half-image was adjusted (without affecting their relative alignment) to ensure that none of the pairs involved disparities that exceeded Panum’s fusional area (around 18–20 arcmin; Grove & Harrold, 2013 ; Schor & Tyler, 1981 ), which, for the current display apparatus and viewing distance, matches the maximum disparity based on the 1/30 rule. Onscreen parallax was never greater than 1.5 cm, giving a maximum disparity of 17 arcmin, and a maximum disparity-screen ratio of 1:35.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depth Perception and the History of Three-Dimensional Art: Who Produced the First Stereoscopic Images?

Brooks

2017

i-Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of the expression of three-dimensional structure in art can be traced from the use of occlusion in Palaeolithic cave paintings, through the use of shadow in classical art, to the development of perspective during the Renaissance. However, the history of the use of stereoscopic techniques is controversial. Although the first undisputed stereoscopic images were presented by Wheatstone in 1838, it has been claimed that two sketches by Jacopo Chimenti da Empoli (c. 1600) can be to be fused to yield an impression of stereoscopic depth, while others suggest that Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is the world’s first stereogram. Here, we report the first quantitative study of perceived depth in these works, in addition to more recent works by Salvador Dalí. To control for the contribution of monocular depth cues, ratings of the magnitude and coherence of depth were recorded for both stereoscopic and pseudoscopic presentations, with a genuine contribution of stereoscopic cues revealed by a difference between these scores. Although effects were clear for Wheatstone and Dalí’s images, no such effects could be found for works produced earlier. As such, we have no evidence to reject the conventional view that the first producer of stereoscopic imagery was Sir Charles Wheatstone.

show abstract

The range of fusible horizontal disparities around the empirical horopters

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

Size Increase in Panum’s Fusional Range Is Driven by Eccentricity and Not Separation

Size Increase in Panum’s Fusional Range Is Driven by Eccentricity and Not Separation

The Effect of Stimulus Size on Stereoscopic Fusion Limits and Response Criteria

Depth Perception and the History of Three-Dimensional Art: Who Produced the First Stereoscopic Images?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About