Depth cues, rather than perceived depth, govern vergence.
We studied the influence of perceived surface orientation on vergence accompanying a saccade while viewing an ambiguous stimulus. We used the slant rivalry stimulus, in which perspective foreshortening and disparity specified opposite surface orientations. This rivalrous configuration induces alternations of perceived surface orientation, while the slant cues remain constant. Subjects were able to voluntarily control their perceptual state while viewing the ambiguous stimulus. They were asked to make a saccade across the perceived slanted surface. Our data show that vergence responses closely approximated the vergence response predicted by the disparity cue, irrespective of voluntarily controlled perceived orientation. However, comparing the data obtained while viewing the ambiguous stimulus with data from an unambiguous stimulus condition (when disparity and perspective specified similar surface orientations) revealed an effect of perspective cues on vergence. Collectively our results show that depth cues rather than perceived depth govern vergence.
Wismeijer
D A
DA
Helmholtz Institute, Department Physics of Man, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC, Utrecht, The Netherlands. D.A.Wismeijer@phys.uu.nl
van Ee
R
R
Erkelens
C J
CJ
D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology; D003290:Convergence, Ocular; D003463:Cues; D003867:Depth Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D005403:Fixation, Ocular; D005556:Form Perception; D006801:Humans; D009903:Optical Illusions; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D012438:Saccades / Q000502:physiology*; D014584:User-Computer Interface; D015357:Vision Disparity / Q000502:physiology*; D015348:Vision, Binocular / Q000502:physiology*; D014796:Visual Perception
Vision Res. 1996 May;36(10):1479-92
8762765
Perception. 1998;27(11):1287-304
10505175
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1989 May 22;236(1285):441-65
2567520
J Vis. 2001;1(2):55-79
12678602
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Oct;175(1):177-82
16733700
Perception. 1987;16(6):731-46
3454431
Vision Res. 1985;25(11):1689-700
3832593
J Physiol. 1984 May;350:9-31
6747862
Exp Brain Res. 2003 Aug;151(4):553-6
12851807
Vision Res. 1987;27(9):1513-26
3445485
J Vis. 2003;3(11):685-97
14765953
Psychol Sci. 2001 Sep;12(5):424-9
11554678
Vision Res. 2005 Jan;45(1):41-55
15571737
Nature. 2001 Apr 12;410(6830):819-22
11298450
J Physiol. 1988 Oct;404:157-82
3253429
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004 Apr;14(2):203-11
15082326
Vision Res. 2006 Oct;46(20):3381-92
16698056
J Exp Psychol. 1968 Oct;78(2):299-305
5722445
Psychol Sci. 2000 Jan;11(1):20-5
11228838
Perception. 2007;36(3):461-70
17455759
Nature. 1997 Sep 18;389(6648):283-6
9305842
Curr Biol. 2001 Feb 6;11(3):177-81
11231152
Exp Brain Res. 2007 Aug;181(2):277-87
17372725
J Vis. 2003;3(11):654-76
14765951
Exp Brain Res. 2005 Apr;162(2):133-44
15791463
Percept Psychophys. 2003 Nov;65(8):1285-95
14710962
Vision Res. 2003 Feb;43(3):307-19
12535989
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Jan 22;272(1559):141-8
15695204
Trends Neurosci. 1992 Jan;15(1):20-5
1374953
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Mar 1;5(3):109-113
11239810
J Vis. 2006;6(7):727-38
16895455
Perception. 1992;21(4):427-39
1437462
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Sep 1;5(9):379-382
11520701
Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1597-607
10788660
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Oct;27(5):1124-44
11642699
J Neurosci. 2007 Aug 15;27(33):8757-70
17699658
J Vis. 2002;2(9):597-607
12678631
Exp Brain Res. 2002 Nov;147(2):135-44
12410328
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Nov 1;5(11):457-459
11684465