Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Binocular processing of motion: Some unresolved questions

Profile image of Rob GrayRob Gray

2009, Spatial vision

https://doi.org/10.1163/156856809786618501
visibility

…

description

43 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The unresolved questions relating to binocular processing of motion include: Is the perceived speed of the motion in depth (MID) of an approaching object inversely proportional to the time to collision?; What visual information supports judgements of the direction of MID?; What is the relation between binocular and monocular processing in the perception of MID? We review whether the perception of stereomotion in depth of a monocularly visible object is caused entirely by a rate of change of disparity, and conclude that the difference between the horizontal velocities of the object's left and right retinal images makes at most only a small contribution to speed discrimination, but conclusions may be different for detection, perceived speed and directional discrimination. We review laboratory evidence on the relative importance of binocular and monocular information for interceptive action and collision avoidance and conclude that, in addition to the effect of considerable intersubject variability, the relative importance depends on the physical size of the approaching object, its distance and, if nonspherical, its direction of motion and whether it is rotating. We compare attempts to find whether the human visual system contains a mechanism specialized for the speed of cyclopean motion within a frontoparallel plane, and find the question ill-posed.

Related papers

Perceived speed of motion in depth is reduced in the periphery
George Mather, Kevin R Brooks

Vision Research, 2000

The perceived speed of motion in depth (MID) for a monocularly visible target was measured in central and peripheral vision using a 2AFC speed discrimination task. Only binocular cues to MID were available: changing disparity and interocular velocity difference (IOVD). Perceived speed for monocular lateral motion and perceived depth for static disparity were also assessed, again in both central and peripheral vision. The purpose of the experiment was to assess the relative contributions of changing disparity and IOVD cues to the perceived speed of stereomotion. Although peripheral stimuli appeared to lie at approximately the same depth as their central counterparts, their apparent speed was reduced. Monocular/lateral and binocular/MID speeds were reduced to a similar extent. It seems that reduced apparent monocular speed leads to reduced perceived MID speed, despite the fact that the disparity system appears to be unaffected. These results suggest that the IOVD cue makes a significant contribution to MID speed perception.

View PDFchevron_right
Long range interactions between object-motion and self-motion in the perception of movement in depth
Rob Gray

Vision Research, 2004

Self-motion through a three-dimensional array of objects creates a radial flow pattern on the retina. We superimposed a simulated object moving in depth on such a flow pattern to investigate the effect of the flow pattern on judgments of both the time to collision (TTC) with an approaching object and the trajectory of that object. Our procedure allowed us to decouple the direction and speed of simulated self motion-in-depth (MID) from the direction and speed of simulated object MID. In Experiment 1 we found that objects with the same closing speed were perceived to have a higher closing speed when self-motion and object-motion were in the same direction and a lower closing speed when they were in the opposite direction. This effect saturated rapidly as the ratio between the speeds of self-motion and object-motion was increased. In Experiment 2 we found that the perceived direction of object-MID was shifted towards the focus of expansion of the flow pattern. In Experiments 3 and 4 we found that the erroneous biases in perceived speed and direction produced by simulated self-motion were significantly reduced when binocular information about MID was added. These findings suggest that the large body of research that has studied motion perception using stationary observers has limited applicability to situations in which both the observer and the object are moving.

View PDFchevron_right
Stereomotion perception for a monocularly camouflaged stimulus
Kevin R Brooks, Barbara Gillam

Under usual circumstances, motion in depth is associated with conventional stereomotion cues: a change in disparity and differences between object velocities in each monocular image. However, occasionally these cues are unavailable due to the fact that in one eye the object may be occluded by, or camouflaged against appropriately positioned binocular objects. We report two experiments concerned with stereomotion perception under conditions of monocular camouflage. In Experiment 1, the visible half-image of a monocularly camouflaged object translated laterally. In this binocular context, percepts of lateral motion and motion in depth were equally consistent with the stimulus. Subjects perceived an oblique trajectory of 3D motion, compared to the more direct 3D trajectory experienced for binocularly matched stimuli. In Experiment 2, the perceived velocity of stereomotion was assessed. Again, for the stimulus used in Experiment 1, perceived stereomotion speed was lower than that for matched stimuli. However, when additional background objects were present, tightening the ecological constraints, perceived stereomotion velocity was often equivalent to that for matched stimuli. These results demonstrate for the first time that the motion of a monocularly camouflaged object can result in the perception of stereomotion, and that the perceived trajectory and speed are influenced by the ecological constraints of binocular geometry.

View PDFchevron_right
Isolation of two binocular mechanisms for motion in depth: A model and psychophysics1
Satoshi Shioiri

Japanese Psychological Research, 2012

Random dot patterns (RDPs) have been used to stimulate in isolation either of two binocular mechanisms for motion in depth: interocular velocity difference (IOVD), and changing disparity over time (CDOT). First, we examined how these stimuli isolate either mechanism using models based on motion/disparity energy detection. In the model, the IOVD mechanism calculates the difference in motion signal between the two eyes, and the CDOT mechanism calculates the difference in disparity signal between sequential stereo images. The simulation revealed that uncorrelated (0% correlation) RDPs are useful to isolate either of the two mechanisms, while the contrast-reversed version (anticorrelation) of RDPs may not. Second, we compared the IOVD model predictions with experimental data from a previous study for motion in depth with various contrasts, displacements and vertical shifts between the two eyes. The simulation showed that the model predicts the general trends of the effects of contrast, displacement and vertical shift shown in the data. This suggests the physiological plausibility of the energy-based model of motion in depth.

View PDFchevron_right
Stereomotion speed perception is contrast dependent
Kevin R Brooks

Perception, 2001

The effect of contrast on the perception of stimulus speed for stereomotion and monocular lateral motion was investigated for successive matches in random-dot stimuli. The familiar `Thompson effect' - that a reduction in contrast leads to a reduction in perceived speed - was found in similar proportions for both binocular images moving in depth, and for monocular images translating laterally. This result is consistent with the idea that the monocular motion system has a significant input to the stereomotion system, and dominates the speed percept for approaching motion.

View PDFchevron_right
Sensory uncertainty leads to systematic misperception of the direction of motion in depth
Jacqueline Fulvio, B. Rokers
View PDFchevron_right
Seeing motion in depth using inter-ocular velocity differences
Bart Farell

Vision Research, 2005

An object moving in depth produces retinal images that change in position over time by different amounts in the two eyes. This allows stereoscopic perception of motion in depth to be based on either one or both of two different visual signals: inter-ocular velocity differences, and binocular disparity change over time. Disparity change over time can produce the perception of motion in depth. However, demonstrating the same for inter-ocular velocity differences has proved elusive because of the difficulty of isolating this cue from disparity change (the inverse can easily be done). No physiological data are available, and existing psychophysical data are inconclusive as to whether inter-ocular velocity differences are used in primate vision. Here, we use motion adaptation to assess the contribution of inter-ocular velocity differences to the perception of motion in depth. If interocular velocity differences contribute to motion in depth, we would expect that discriminability of direction of motion in depth should be improved after adaptation to frontoparallel motion. This is because an inter-ocular velocity difference is a comparison between two monocular frontoparallel motion signals, and because frontoparallel speed discrimination improves after motion adaptation. We show that adapting to frontoparallel motion does improve both frontoparallel speed discrimination and motion-in-depth direction discrimination. No improvement would be expected if only disparity change over time contributes to motion in depth. Furthermore, we found that frontoparallel motion adaptation diminishes discrimination of both speed and direction of motion in depth in dynamic random dot stereograms, in which changing disparity is the only cue available. The results provide strong evidence that inter-ocular velocity differences contribute to the perception of motion in depth and thus that the human visual system contains mechanisms for detecting differences in velocity between the two eyes' retinal images.

View PDFchevron_right
Oculomotor contribution to the change in perceived speed with viewing distance
Robert Patterson

Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2008

An array of moving circular stimuli was used to determine whether perceived speed is affected by the oculomotor responses associated with changes in viewing distance. The perceived speed of stimuli viewed at either 0.33 or 1.33 m was compared to the perceived speed of a similar stimulus viewed at a distance of 5.5 m. In addition, a control condition was run in which changes in perceived speed were compared for monocular viewing of the 0.33 m and 5.5 m stimuli. In the binocular condition, there were statistically significant decreases in perceived speed of about 11% for the 0.33 m viewing distance, and about 6.5% for the 1.33 m viewing distance. There was no significant decrease in perceived speed in the monocular condition. This latter finding, along with the similar appearance of the near and far stimuli in the monocular condition, suggests that ocular vergence (as opposed to accommodation or vergence-accommodation) was the primary determinant of the change in perceived speed with changes in binocular viewing distance. Although the change in perceived speed with fixation distance was relatively small, the data from all observers were in the direction of speed constancy. Thus, to the extent that vergence is a cue to egocentric distance, the present data suggest that egocentric distance is used to scale the perceived speed of targets moving at different distances from the observer.

View PDFchevron_right
Asymmetry in the perception of motion-in-depth
Masami Yamaguchi K

Vision Research, 2004

An expanding object, which may represent an approaching motion, is easier to detect than a contracting one, which may represent a receding object. To confirm the generality of asymmetry in the detection of approaching and receding motions, we focused on the perception of apparent motion in depth created by moving cast shadows. The visual search for an approaching target among receding distractors was more efficient than for the opposite condition (Experiment 1). However, this asymmetry disappeared when a light shadow was added (Experiments 2 and 3). This suggests that the visual system is specialized to detect approaching motion defined by cast shadows, as well as other three-dimensional cues such as expanding motion and shading.

View PDFchevron_right
Aftereffect of motion-in-depth based on binocular cues: No effect of relative disparity between adaptation and test surfaces
Yuichi Sakano

Journal of Vision, 2010

There are at least two possible binocular cues to motionin-depth, namely disparity change over time and interocular velocity differences. There has been significant controversy about their relative contributions to the perception of motion-in-depth. In the present study, we used the technique of selective adaptation to address this question. In Experiment 1, we found that adaptation to motion-in-depth depicted by temporally correlated random-dot stereograms, which contained coherent interocular velocity difference, produced motion aftereffect in the depth direction irrespective of the adaptors' interocular correlation for any adaptation duration tested. This suggests that coherent changing disparity does not contribute to motion-in-depth adaptation. Because the aftereffect duration did not saturate in the tested range of adaptation duration, it is unlikely that the lack of the effect of changing disparity was due to a ceiling effect. In Experiment 2, we used a novel adaptor that contained a unidirectional coherent interocular velocity difference signal and a bidirectional changing disparity signal that should not induce a motion aftereffect in depth. Following the adaptation, motion aftereffect in depth occurred in the opposite direction to the adaptor's motion-in-depth based on interocular velocity difference. Experiment 3 demonstrated that these results generalized in 12 untrained subjects. These experiments suggest that the contribution of interocular velocity difference to the perception of motion-in-depth is substantial, while that of changing disparity is very limited (if any), at least at the stages of direction-selective mechanisms subject to an aftereffect phenomenon.

View PDFchevron_right

References (115)

  1. Alderson, G. J. K., Sully, D. L. and Sully, H. G. (1974). An operational analysis of a one-handed catching task using high-speed photography, J. Motor Behav. 6, 217-226.
  2. Allison, R. S. and Howard, I. P. (2000). Stereopsis with persisting and dynamic textures, Vision Research 40, 3822-3827.
  3. Andrews, T. J., Glennerster, A. and Parker, A. J. (2001). Stereoacuity thresholds in the presence of a reference surface, Vision Research 41, 3051-3061.
  4. Anstis, S. M. (1980). The perception of apparent movement, Philosoph. Trans. Roy. Soc. 290B, 153-168.
  5. Beverley, K. I. and Regan, D. (1973). Evidence for the existence of neural mechanisms selectively sensitive to the direction of movement in space, J. Physiol. 235, 17-29.
  6. Beverley, K. I. and Regan, D. (1974a). Temporal integration of disparity information in stereoscopic perception, Exper. Brain Res. 19, 228-232.
  7. Beverley, K. I. and Regan, D. (1974b). Visual sensitivity to disparity pulses: evidence for directional selectivity, Vision Research 14, 357-361.
  8. Beverley, K. I. and Regan, D. (1975). The relation between discrimination and sensitivity in the perception of motion in depth, J. Physiol. 249, 387-398.
  9. Beverley, K. I. and Regan, D. (1979). Separable aftereffects of changing-size and motion-in-depth: different neural mechanisms? Vision Research 19, 727-732.
  10. Beverley, K. I. and Regan, D. (1980). Visual sensitivity to the shape and size of a moving object: implications for models of object perception, Perception 9, 151-160.
  11. Blake, R. and Fox, R. (1973). Psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation, Perception and Psychophysics 14, 161-185.
  12. Blakemore, C. (1970). The range of scope of binocular depth discriminations in man, J. Physiol. 211, 599-622.
  13. Bootsma, R. J. (1991). Predictive information and the control of action: what you see is what you get, Int. J. Sports Psychol. 22, 271-278.
  14. Bootsma, R. J. and van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1990). Timing an attacking forehand drive in table tennis, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Perception and Performance 17, 738-748.
  15. Braddick, O. J. (1974). A short-range process in apparent motion, Vision Research 14, 519-527.
  16. Braddick, O. J. (1980). Low-level and high-level processes in apparent motion, Philosoph. Trans. Roy. Soc. 290B, 137-151.
  17. Bradman, D. (1935). How to Play Cricket. A Daily Mail publication. Morrison and Gibbs, London.
  18. Bradshaw, M. F. and Glennerster, A. (2006). Stereoscopic acuity and observation distance, Spatial Vision 19, 21-36.
  19. Brooks, K. R. (2002). Interocular velocity difference contributes to stereomotion speed perception, J. Vision 2, 218-231.
  20. Brooks, K. R. and Stone, L. S. (2004). Stereomotion speed perception: contributions from both changing disparity and interocular velocity difference over a range of relative disparity, J. Vision 4, 1061-1079.
  21. Caljouw, S. R., van der Kamp, J. and Savelsbergh, G. K. (2004). Catching optical information for the regulation of timing, Exper. Brain Res. 155, 427-438.
  22. Cumming, B. G. (1995). The relationship between stereoacuity and stereomotion thresholds, Percep- tion 24, 105-114.
  23. Cumming, B. G. and Parker, A. J. (1994). Binocular mechanisms for detecting motion in depth, Vision Research 34, 483-495.
  24. Donelly, M., Bowd, C. and Patterson, R. (1997). Direction discrimination of cyclopean (stereoscopic) and luminance motion, Vision Research 37, 2041-2046.
  25. Efron, R. (1957). Stereoscopic vision: I. Effect of temporal summation, Brit. J. Ophthalmol. 41, 709-730.
  26. Fernandez, J. M. and Farell, B. (2005). Seeing motion in depth using inter-ocular velocity differences, Vision Research 45, 2786-2798.
  27. Fielder, A. R. and Moseley, M. J. (1996). Does stereopsis matter in humans? Eye 10, 233-238.
  28. Godek, C. L. and Lawson, R. B. (1973). The effect of time interval between stimuli upon stereoscopic depth perception, Psychol. Rev. 23, 243-248.
  29. Gray, R. and Regan, D. (1996). Cyclopean motion perception produced by oscillations of size, disparity and location, Vision Research 36, 655-665.
  30. Gray, R. and Regan, D. (1998). Accuracy of estimating time to collision using binocular and monocular information, Vision Research 38, 499-512.
  31. Gray, R. and Regan, D. (1999a). Motion in depth: adequate and inadequate stimulation, Perception and Psychophysics 61, 236-245.
  32. Gray, R. and Regan, D. (1999b). Do monocular time to collision estimates necessarily involve perceived distance? Perception 28, 1257-1264.
  33. Gray, R. and Regan, D. (2000a). Estimating the time to collision with a rotating nonspherical object, Vision Research 40, 49-63.
  34. Gray, R. and Regan, D. (2000b). Simulated self-motion alters perceived time to collision, Curr. Biol. 10, 587-590.
  35. Gray, R. and Sieffert, R. (2005). Different strategies for using motion in depth information in catching, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Perception and Performance 31, 1004-1022.
  36. Gray, R., Macuga, K. M. and Regan, D. (2004). Long range interactions between object-motion and self-motion in the perception of motion in depth, Vision Research 44, 179-195.
  37. Gray, R., Regan, D., Castaneda, B. and Sieffert, R. (2006). Role of feedback in the accuracy of perceived direction of motion-in-depth and control of interceptive action, Vision Research 46, 1676-1694.
  38. Grosslight, J. H., Fletcher, H. J., Masterton, R. B. and Hagen, R. (1978). Monocular vision and landing performance in general aviation pilots: cyclops revisited, Human Factors 20, 127-133.
  39. Hamstra, S. J. and Regan, D. (1995). Orientation discrimination in cyclopean vision, Vision Research 35, 365-374.
  40. Harris, J. M. and Watamaniuk, S. J. N. (1995). Speed discrimination of motion-in-depth using binocular cues, Vision Research 35, 885-896.
  41. Harris, J. M. and Watamaniuk, S. N. J. (1996). Poor speed discrimination suggests that there is no specialized mechanism for cyclopean motion, Vision Research 36, 2149-2157.
  42. von Helmholtz, H. (1910). In: Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics, Vol. 1, Southall, J. P. (Ed.), pp. 312-313. Dover, New York, USA (1962).
  43. Holtz, E. (1955). Die Deteiligung von Konverenz und Akkomodation an der Wahreugenommen Grozzenkonstanz, Naturwiss 42, 444.
  44. Hong, X. and Regan, D. (1989). Visual field defects for unidirectional and oscillatory motion in depth, Vision Research 29, 809-819.
  45. Howard, I. P. and Rogers, B. (1995). Binocular Vision and Stereopsis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  46. Howard, I. P., Allison, R. S. and Howard, A. (1998). Depth from moving random uncorrelated dot displays, Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. 31, 669.
  47. Hoyle, F. (1957). The Black Cloud. Heinemann, London, UK. Republished 1960, Penguin Books, London, UK.
  48. Julesz, B. (1960). Binocular depth perception of computer generated patterns, Bell System Tech. J. 39, 1125-1162.
  49. Julesz, B. (1971). Foundations of Cyclopean Perception. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
  50. Julesz, B. and Payne, R. A. (1968). Differences between monocular and binocular stroboscopic movement perception, Vision Research 8, 433-444.
  51. Kohly, R. P. and Regan, D. (1999). Evidence for a mechanism sensitive to the speed of cyclopean form, Vision Research 39, 1011-1024.
  52. Kohly, R. P. and Regan, D. (2002). Fast long-range interactions in the early processing of luminance- defined form, Vision Research 42, 49-63.
  53. Kruk, R. and Regan, D. (1983). Visual test results compared with flying performance in telemetry- tracked aircraft, Aviation, Space Environ. Med. 54, 906-911.
  54. Kruk, R. and Regan, D. (1996). Collision avoidance: a helicopter simulator study, Aviation, Space Environ. Med. 67, 111-114.
  55. Lee, D. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time to collision, Perception 5, 437-459.
  56. Lewis, C. E. Jr. and Kriers, G. E. (1969). Flight research program: XIV. Landing performance in jet aircraft after the loss of binocular vision, Aerospace Med. 40, 957-963.
  57. Lewis, C. E. Jr., Blakeley, W. R., Swaroop, R., Masters, R. L. and McMurty, T. C. (1973). Landing performance by low-time private pilots after the sudden loss of binocular vision -Cyclops II, Aerospace Med. 44, 1241-1245.
  58. McCready, D. W. (1965). Size-distance perception and accommodation-convergence micropsia - a critique, Vision Research 5, 189-206.
  59. McKee, S. P. (1981). A local mechanism for differential velocity detection, Vision Research 21, 491-500.
  60. Montagne, G., Laurent, M., Durey, A. and Bootsma, R. (1999). Movement reversals in ball catching, Exper. Brain Res. 29, 87-92.
  61. Ogle, K. N. (1958). Note on stereoscopic acuity and observation distance, J. Optic. Soc. Amer. 48, 794-798.
  62. Ogle, K. N. (1963). Stereoscopic depth perception and exposure delay between images to the two eyes, J. Optic. Soc. Amer. 53, 1296-1304.
  63. Papert, S. (1964). Stereoscopic synthesis as a technique for locating visual mechanisms, MIT Quart. Prog. Rep. 73, 239-243.
  64. Patterson, R. (1999). Stereoscopic (cyclopean) motion sensing, Vision Research 39, 3329-3345.
  65. Patterson, R., Hart, P. and Nowak, D. (1991). The cyclopean Ternus display and the perception of element versus group movement, Vision Research 31, 2085-2092.
  66. Patterson, R., Ricker, C., McGary, J. and Rose, D. (1992). Properties of cyclopean motion perception, Vision Research 32, 149-156.
  67. Patterson, R., Bowd, C., Phinney, R., Pohndorf, R., Barton-Howard, W. and Angilette, I. M. (1994). Properties of the stereoscopic motion aftereffect, Vision Research 24, 1139-1147.
  68. Peper, L., Bootsma, R. J., Mestre, D. R. and Bakker, F. C. (1994). Catching balls: how to get the hand to the right place at the right time, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform. 20, 591-612.
  69. Phinney, R., Wilson, R., Hays, B., Peters, K. and Patterson, R. (1994). Spatial displacement limits for cyclopean (stereoscopic) apparent-motion perception, Perception 23, 1287-1306.
  70. Poggio, G. F. (1991). Physiological basis of stereoscopic vision, in: Binocular Vision, Regan, D. (Ed.), pp. 224-238. Macmillan Press, London, UK.
  71. Poggio, G. F. and Fischer, B. (1977). Binocular interaction and depth sensitivity in striate and prestriate cortex of behaving rhesus monkeys, J. Neurophysiol. 40, 1392-1407.
  72. Poggio, G. F. and Talbot, W. H. (1981). Neural mechanisms of static and dynamic stereopsis in foveal striate cortex of rhesus monkeys, J. Physiol. 315, 461-492.
  73. Portfors, C. V. and Regan, D. (1997). Just noticeable differences in the speed of cyclopean motion in depth and of cyclopean motion within a frontoparallel plane, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Perception and Performance 23, 1074-1086.
  74. Portfors-Yeomans, C. V. and Regan, D. (1996). Cyclopean discrimination thresholds for the direction and speed of motion in depth, Vision Research 36, 3625-3279.
  75. Portfors-Yeomans, C. V. and Regan, D. (1997). Discrimination of the direction and speed of a monocularly visible target from binocular information alone, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Perception and Performance 23, 227-243.
  76. Regan, D. (1982). Visual information channelling in normal and disordered vision, Psychol. Rev. 89, 407-444.
  77. Regan, D. (1986). Visual processing of four kinds of relative motion, Vision Research 26, 127-145.
  78. Regan, D. (1992). Visual judgements and midjudgements in cricket, and the art of flight, Perception 21, 91-115.
  79. Regan, D. (1993). Binocular correlates of the direction of motion in depth, Vision Research 33, 2359-2360.
  80. Regan, D. (1995). Spatial orientation in aviation: visual contributions, J. Vestibular Research 5, 455-471.
  81. Regan, D. (1997). Visual factors in hitting and catching, J. Sports Sci. 15, 533-558.
  82. Regan, D. (2000). Human Perception of Objects. Sinauer Associates, MA, USA.
  83. Regan, D. (2002). Binocular information about time to collision and time to passage, Vision Research 42, 2479-2484.
  84. Regan, D. and Beverley, K. I. (1973). Some dynamic features of depth perception, Vision Research 13, 2369-2379.
  85. Regan, D. and Beverley, K. I. (1978). Looming detectors in the human visual pathway, Vision Research 18, 415-421.
  86. Regan, D. and Beverley, K. I. (1979). Binocular and monocular stimuli for motion in depth: changing- disparity and changing-size feed the same motion-in-depth stage, Vision Research 19, 1331-1342.
  87. Regan, D. and Beverley, K. I. (1980). Visual responses to changing size and to sideways motion for different directions of motion in depth: linearization of visual responses, J. Optic. Soc. Amer. 11, 1289-1296.
  88. Regan, D. and Beverley, K. I. (1983). Spatial frequency discrimination and detection: comparison of postadaptation thresholds, J. Optic. Soc. Amer. 13, 1684-1690.
  89. Regan, D. and Beverley, K. I. (1985). Post-adaptation orientation discrimination, J. Optic. Soc. Amer. A7, 147-155.
  90. Regan, D. and Gray, R. (2000). Visually guided collision avoidance and collision achievement, Trends Cognit. Sci. 4, 99-107.
  91. Regan, D. and Gray, R. (2004). A step-by-step approach to research on time-to-contact and time- to-passage, in: Time to Contact, H. Hecht, J. Geert and J. P. Savelsbergh (Eds), pp. 175-228. Advances in Psychology Series. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  92. Regan, D. and Hamstra, S. J. (1993). Dissociation of discrimination thresholds for time to contact and for rate of angular expansion, Vision Research 33, 447-462.
  93. Regan, D. and Hamstra, S. (1994). Shape discrimination for rectangles defined by disparity alone, disparity plus luminance and by disparity plus motion, Vision Research 34, 2277-2291.
  94. Regan, D. and Kaushal, S. (1994). Monocular discrimination of the direction of motion in depth, Vision Research 34, 163-177.
  95. Regan, D. and Spekreijse, H. (1970). Electrophysiological correlate of binocular depth perception in man, Nature 255, 92-94.
  96. Regan, D., Beverley, K. I. and Cynader, M. (1979). The visual perception of motion in depth, Sci. Amer. 241, 136-151.
  97. Regan, D., Erkelens, C. J. and Collewijn, H. (1986a). Necessary conditions for the perception of motion in depth, Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 27, 584-597.
  98. Regan, D., Erkelens, C. J. and Collewijn, H. (1986b). Visual field defects for vergence eye movements and for stereomotion perception, Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 27, 806-819.
  99. Regan, D., Gray, R., Portfors, C. V., Hamstra, S. J., Vincent, A., Hong, X. H., Kohly, R. and Beverley, K. I. (1998). Catching, hitting and collision avoidance, in: Vision and Action, Harris, L. and Jenkin, M. (Eds), pp. 171-209. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  100. Richards, W. (1969). The influence of the oculomotor systems on visual perception. AFOSR Technical Report No. 69-1934 TR.
  101. Richards, W. (1972). Response functions for sine-and square-wave modulations of disparity, J. Optic. Soc. Amer. 62, 907-911.
  102. Richards, W. (1977). Stereopsis with and without monocular contours, Vision Research 17, 967-969.
  103. Richards, W. and Regan, D. (1973). A stereo field map with implications for disparity processing, Invest. Ophthalmol. 12, 904-909.
  104. Schöner, G. (1994). Dynamic theory of action-perception patterns: the time-before-contact paradigm, Human Movement Sci. 13, 415-439.
  105. Shioiri, S., Saisho, H. and Yaguchi, H. (2000). Motion in depth based on inter-ocular velocity differences, Vision Research 40, 2565-2572.
  106. Siderov, J. and Harwerth, R. S. (1993). Precision of stereoscopic depth perception from double images, Vision Research 33, 1553-1560.
  107. Tyler, C. W. (1971). Stereoscopic depth movement: two eyes less sensitive than one, Science 174, 958-961.
  108. Tyler, C. W. (1974). Depth perception in cyclopean gratings, Nature 251, 140-142.
  109. Tyler, C. W. (1975). Characteristics of stereomovement suppression, Perception and Psychophysics 17, 225-230.
  110. Tyler, C. W. (1991). Cyclopean vision, in: Binocular Vision, Regan, D. (Ed.), pp. 38-74. Macmillan, London, UK.
  111. Tyler, C. W. (2004). Binocular vision, in: Duane's Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology, Vol. 2, Taiman, W. and Jaeger, E. A. (Eds), Chapter 24. J. R. Lippicott Co., Philadelphia, USA.
  112. Tyler, C. W. and Kontsevich, L. L. (2001). Stereoprocessing of cyclopean depth images: horizontally elongated receptive fields, Vision Research 41, 2235-2243.
  113. Tyler, C. W. and Raibert, M. (1975). Generation of random-dot stereograms, Behav. Res. Methods Instrument. 7, 37-41.
  114. Ukwade, M. T., Harwerth, R. S. and Bedell, H. E. (2007). Srereoscopic acuity, observation distance and fixation disparity, Spatial Vision 20, 489-492.
  115. Westheimer, G. (1979). Cooperative neural processes involved in stereoscopic acuity, Exper. Brain Res. 36, 585-597.

Related papers

Stereomotion suppression and the perception of speed: Accuracy and precision as a function of 3D trajectory
Kevin R Brooks

Journal of Vision, 2006

The precision and accuracy of speed discrimination performance for stereomotion stimuli were assessed for several receding 3D trajectories confined to the horizontal meridian. It has previously been demonstrated in a variety of tasks that detection thresholds are substantially higher when subjects observe a stereomotion stimulus than when simply viewing one of its component monocular half-imagesVa phenomenon known as stereomotion suppression (C. W. Tyler, 1971). Using monocularly visible motion in depth targets, we found mean speed discrimination thresholds to be higher for stereomotion, compared with monocular lateral speed discrimination thresholds for equivalent stimuli, demonstrating a disadvantage for binocular viewing in the case of speed discrimination as well. Furthermore, speed discrimination thresholds for motion in depth were not systematically affected by trajectory angle; hence, the disadvantage of binocular viewing persists even when there are concurrent changes in binocular visual direction. Lastly, there was a tendency for oblique trajectories of stereomotion to be perceived as faster than equally rapid motion receding directly away from the subject along the midline. Our data, in addition to earlier stereomotion suppression observations, are consistent with a stereomotion system that takes a noisy, weighted difference of the stimulus velocities in the two eyes to compute motion in depth.

View PDFchevron_right
A study on approaching motion perception in periphery with binocular viewing: Visibility is increased in the absence of one eye’s information
Masanori Idesawa

Optical Review, 2009

The visibility of an approaching target on the horizontal plane in peripheral vision with binocular viewing was studied. It was found that the perceptual performance for the target moving toward the middle point of the two eyes was remarkably worse; under this circumstance it has rather high performance in the absence of one eye's target information with occlusion or falling on the blind spot. These facts imply that the conventional change disparity mechanism does not work in the peripheral visual field; while some simple combinations of the monocular information of two eyes, such as the sum of two eyes' image motion with sign, can be used to detect an approaching motion in the periphery.

View PDFchevron_right
Interocular velocity difference contributes to stereomotion speed perception
Kevin R Brooks

Journal of Vision, 2002

Two experiments are presented assessing the contributions of the rate of change of disparity (CD) and interocular velocity difference (IOVD) cues to stereomotion speed perception. Using a two-interval forced-choice paradigm, the perceived speed of directly approaching and receding stereomotion and of monocular lateral motion in random dot stereogram (RDS) targets was measured. Prior adaptation using dysjunctively moving random dot stimuli induced a velocity aftereffect (VAE). The degree of interocular correlation in the adapting images was manipulated to assess the effectiveness of each cue. While correlated adaptation involved a conventional RDS stimulus, containing both IOVD and CD cues, uncorrelated adaptation featured an independent dot array in each monocular half-image, and hence lacked a coherent disparity signal. Adaptation produced a larger VAE for stereomotion than for monocular lateral motion, implying effects at neural sites beyond that of binocular combination. For motion passing through the horopter, correlated and uncorrelated adaptation stimuli produced equivalent stereomotion VAEs. The possibility that these results were due to the adaptation of a CD mechanism through random matches in the uncorrelated stimulus was discounted in a control experiment. Here both simultaneous and sequential adaptation of left and right eyes produced similar stereomotion VAEs. Motion at uncrossed disparities was also affected by both correlated and uncorrelated adaptation stimuli, but showed a significantly greater VAE in response to the former. These results show that (1) there are two separate, specialised mechanisms for encoding stereomotion: one through IOVD, the other through CD; (2) the IOVD cue dominates the perception of stereomotion speed for stimuli passing through the horopter; and (3) at a disparity pedestal both the IOVD and the CD cues have a significant influence.

View PDFchevron_right
Speed discrimination in the far monocular periphery: A relative advantage for interocular comparisons consistent with self-motion
Lawrence K. Cormack

Journal of Vision, 2016

Some animals with lateral eyes (such as bees) control their navigation through the 3D world using velocity differences between the two eyes. Other animals with frontal eyes (such as primates, including humans) can perceive 3D motion based on the different velocities that a moving object projects upon the two retinae. Although one type of 3D motion perception involves a comparison between velocities from vastly different (monocular) portions of the visual field, and the other involves a comparison within overlapping (binocular) portions of the visual field, both compare velocities across the two eyes. Here we asked whether human interocular velocity comparisons, typically studied in the context of binocularly overlapping vision, operate in the far lateral (and hence, monocular) periphery and, if so, whether these comparisons were accordant with conventional interocular motion processing. We found that speed discrimination was indeed better between the two eyes' monocular visual fields, as compared to within a single eye's (monocular) visual field, but only when the velocities were consistent with commonly encountered motion. This intriguing finding suggests that mechanisms sensitive to relative motion information on opposite sides of an animal may have been retained, or at some point independently achieved, as the eyes became frontal in some animals.

View PDFchevron_right
Stereomotion speed perception: Contributions from both changing disparity and interocular velocity difference over a range of relative disparities
Kevin R Brooks

2004

Abstract The role of two binocular cues to motion in depth—changing disparity (CD) and interocular velocity difference (IOVD)—was investigated by measuring stereomotion speed discrimination and static disparity discrimination performance (stereoacuity). Speed discrimination thresholds were assessed both for random dot stereograms (RDS), and for their temporally uncorrelated equivalents, dynamic random dot stereograms (DRDS), at relative disparity pedestals of− 19, 0, and+ 19 arcmin.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Binocular vision
  • Motion perception
  • Spatial vision
  • Depth Perception

    • Cited by

    On the Inverse Problem of Binocular 3D Motion Perception
    Martin Lages

    PLOS Computational Biology, 2010

    It is shown that existing processing schemes of 3D motion perception such as interocular velocity difference, changing disparity over time, as well as joint encoding of motion and disparity, do not offer a general solution to the inverse optics problem of local binocular 3D motion. Instead we suggest that local velocity constraints in combination with binocular disparity and other depth cues provide a more flexible framework for the solution of the inverse problem. In the context of the aperture problem we derive predictions from two plausible default strategies: (1) the vector normal prefers slow motion in 3D whereas (2) the cyclopean average is based on slow motion in 2D. Predicting perceived motion directions for ambiguous line motion provides an opportunity to distinguish between these strategies of 3D motion processing. Our theoretical results suggest that velocity constraints and disparity from feature tracking are needed to solve the inverse problem of 3D motion perception. It seems plausible that motion and disparity input is processed in parallel and integrated late in the visual processing hierarchy.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved