What is binocular disparity?

Lappin, Joseph S.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00870

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effective range of binocular disparity varies strongly across literature, with investigators reporting different thresholds at which binocular disparity as a depth cue becomes ineffective: Some researchers suggest the cue’s effectiveness to be limited to the personal and action space (<30 m), while others claim an effectiveness of up to 135 m (cf. Cavallo & Laurent, 1988; Cutting & Vishton, 1995; Foley, 1991; Lappin, 2014; Nagata, 1989; Palmisano, Gillam, Govan, Allison, & Harris, 2010; Schiff, 1980). With varying interpupillary distances across participants certainly playing a role (discussed in the Human Factors section), it also has to be noted that stereoweakness and stereoblindness are not uncommon in the general population and affect the effective range (Cutting & Vishton, 1995).…”

Section: Supportive Depth Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impending Collision Judgment from an Egocentric Perspective in Real and Virtual Environments: A Review

Feldstein

2019

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human egocentric perception of approaching objects and the related perceptual processes have been of interest to researchers for several decades. This article gives a literature review on numerous studies that investigated the phenomenon when an object approaches an observer (or the other way around) with the goal to single out factors that influence the perceptual process. A taxonomy of metrics is followed by a breakdown of different experimental measurement methods. Thereinafter, potential factors affecting the judgment of approaching objects are compiled and debated while divided into human factors (e.g., gender, age, and driving experience), compositional factors (e.g., approaching velocity, spatial distance, and observation time), and technical factors (e.g., field of view, stereoscopy, and display contrast). Experimental findings are collated, juxtaposed, and critically discussed. With virtual-reality devices having taken a tremendous developmental leap forward in the past few years, they have been able to gain ground in experimental research. Therefore, special attention in this article is also given to the perception of approaching objects in virtual environments and put in contrast to the perception in reality.

show abstract

Section: Supportive Depth Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impending Collision Judgment from an Egocentric Perspective in Real and Virtual Environments: A Review

Feldstein

2019

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[6][7][8] It is natural to think that the disparity extraction process would be easier if two equally strong signals were compared, and much more difficult if a very strong signal is compared to a weak signal. 9 It is also known that an unequal blur of the images in the two eyes deteriorates stereoacuity more than when there are equally blurred images in the two eyes. [10][11][12][13][14][15] This may be, in part, due to unequal contrast of the images in the two eyes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Balanced Eyes See Stereopsis More Quickly, but Not More Finely

Bai

Zhang

et al. 2018

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE. To quantify ocular sensory dominance and investigate its relationship to stereopsis. METHOD.A total of 69 subjects participated in the study. Ocular dominance was measured by a continuous flashing technique, with the tested eye viewing a Gabor patch increasing in contrast, and the fellow eye viewing a Mondrian noise decreasing in contrast. In each trial, the log ratio of Mondrian to Gabor's contrasts was recorded as a subject first detected the Gabor. We collected 50 trials for each eye and an interocular difference was analyzed with a rank-sum test. The z-value was used as the ocular dominance index (ODI) to quantify the degree of ocular dominance. A subject with ODI ‡ 2 was categorized as having a clear ocular dominance, and a subject with ODI < 2 was considered as having balanced eyes (unclear dominance). The stereoacuity was measured with random dot patterns with durations varying from 50 to 1000 ms. The best achievable stereoacuity (D min ) and the integration time needed to acquire that (T min ) were calculated. RESULTS.A total of 30 subjects had balanced eyes and 39 had clear ocular dominance. T min was significantly longer in subjects with clear ocular dominance than in subjects with balanced eyes (180.18 vs. 121.17 ms, P < 0.01). T min was positively correlated with ODI (P < 0.01). However, D min in subjects with clear dominance was not different from that in subjects with balanced eyes (40.60 vs. 35.73 arcsec, P ¼ 0.18).CONCLUSIONS. Ocular dominance is not associated with how fine the stereoacuity is, but rather how quickly the best stereoacuity is acquired.

show abstract

“…A convenient means for extracting that information would be with location-specific cortical receptive fields that function as spatial-frequency selective neural filters [54]. Another, complementary definition of disparity focuses on disparity in the phase domain [55]. An impetus for this idea comes from physiological studies showing that binocular cortical neurons are sensitive to different phase shifts within pairs of monocular images [56, 57].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing the World Like Never Before: Human stereovision through perfect optics

Blake

Banks

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stereovision is the ability to perceive fine depth variations from small differences in the two eyes’ images. Using adaptive optics, we show that even minute optical aberrations that are not clinically correctable, and go unnoticed in everyday vision, can affect stereo acuity. Hence, the human binocular system is capable of using unnaturally fine details that are not encountered in everyday vision. More importantly, stereoacuity was still considerably variable even with perfect optics. This variability can be attributed to neural adaptation. Our visual system tries to compensate for these aberrations through neural adaptation that optimizes stereovision when viewing stimuli through one’s habitual optics. However, the same adaptation becomes ineffective when the optics are changed, even if improved. Beyond optical imperfections, we show that stereovision is limited by neural adaptation to one’s own optics.Significance statementHumans, and animals with front-facing eyes, view the world from slightly different vantage points. This creates small differences in the left and right images that can be utilized for fine depth perception (stereovision). Retinal images are also subject to imperfections that are often different in the optics of the two eyes. Using advanced optical correction techniques, we show that even the smallest imperfections that escape clinical detection affect stereovision. We also find that neural processes become adapted to a person’s own optics. Hence, stereovision is directly impacted by the optics of the eyes, and indirectly via neural adaptation. Since the optics change over the lifespan, our results imply that the adult binocular system is adaptable with possibilities for binocular rehabilitation.

show abstract

What is binocular disparity?

Cited by 18 publications

References 48 publications

Impending Collision Judgment from an Egocentric Perspective in Real and Virtual Environments: A Review

Impending Collision Judgment from an Egocentric Perspective in Real and Virtual Environments: A Review

Balanced Eyes See Stereopsis More Quickly, but Not More Finely

Seeing the World Like Never Before: Human stereovision through perfect optics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About