Integration of intermittent visual samples over time and between the eyes.
The authors investigated the integration of alternate disparate monocular inputs for binocular perception in 1-handed catching experiments (N = 14, 32, 22, and 15 participants, respectively in Experiments 1-4). They varied the no-vision interval between alternate monocular samples to measure catching performance, and they compared the alternating monocular conditions with binocular and monocular conditions with equal no-vision intervals. They found no evidence of a binocular advantage for one-handed catching in the alternating monocular conditions. Performance in monocular and alternating monocular conditions did not differ across no-vision intervals ranging from 0-80 ms and was particularly worse than performance in binocular viewing conditions when the no-vision interval was 40 ms or more. The authors argue that the dissimilarity between disparate monocular inputs created by the approaching object limited the integration of those inputs and subsequent binocular perception.
Bennett
Simon
S
Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, The Henry Cannon Building, 15-21 Webster Street, Liverpool, L3 2 ET, England. s.j.bennett@ljmu.ac.uk
Ashford
Derek
D
Rioja
Natalia
N
Coull
Jamie
J
Elliott
Digby
D
D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D007839:Functional Laterality; D006225:Hand; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009043:Motor Activity; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D015348:Vision, Binocular / Q000502:physiology*; D015349:Vision, Monocular / Q000502:physiology*; D014785:Vision, Ocular; D014796:Visual Perception