A note on "Optical motions as information for unsigned depth".
Farber and McConkie have questioned whether optical (or retinal) flows provide a basis for the accurate perception of relative distance (or filled depth, in Gibson, Gibson, Smith, & Flock's terms). Some of the analysis Farber and McConkie present is incorrect. In this article I identity some of the fallacies and discuss issues relevant to these fallacies. The critique does not concern the experiments presented by Farber and McConkie but rather the underlying analysis that culminated in the experiments.
D003867:Depth Perception / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D009039:Motion Perception / Q000502:physiology; D012160:Retina / Q000502:physiology; D013028:Space Perception / Q000502:physiology