The horizontal disparity direction vs. the stimulus disparity direction in the perception of the depth of two-dimensional patterns.
Horizontal binocular disparity has long been the conventional predictor of stereo depth. Surprisingly, an alternative predictor fairs just as well. This alternative predicts the relative depth of two stimuli from the relation between their disparity vectors, without regard to horizontal disparities. These predictions can differ; horizontal disparities accurately predict the perceived depth of a grating and a plaid only when the grating is vertical, while the vector calculation accurately predicts it at all except near-horizontal grating orientations. For spatially two-dimensional stimulus pairs, such as plaids, dots, and textures, the predictions cannot be distinguished when the stimuli have the same disparity direction or when the disparity direction of one of the stimuli is horizontal or has a magnitude of zero. These are the conditions that have prevailed in earlier studies. We tested whether the perceived depth of two-dimensional stimuli depends on relative horizontal disparity magnitudes or on relative disparity magnitudes along a disparity axis. On both measures tested-depth matches and depth-interval matches-the perceived depth of plaids varied with their horizontal disparities and not with disparity direction differences as observed for grating-plaid pairs. Differences in disparity directions as great as 120 degrees did not affect depth judgments. This result, though opposite the grating-plaid data, is consistent with them and provides a view into the construction of orientation-invariant disparity representations.
Farell
Bart
B
Institute for Sensory Research, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA. bfarell@syr.edu
Chai
Yu-Chin
YC
Fernandez
Julian M
JM
D003867:Depth Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008029:Lighting; D009949:Orientation / Q000502:physiology*; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods*
Vision Res. 1991;31(7-8):1337-50
1891822
J Neurophysiol. 1983 May;49(5):1148-67
6864243
Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1314-29
11800459
Science. 1980 May 9;208(4444):615-7
7367885
Vision Res. 2009 Aug;49(17):2209-16
19540869
Vision Res. 1978;18(3):351-2
664311
J Vis. 2009 Sep 04;9(10):3.1-19
19810784
J Neurophysiol. 2002 Jan;87(1):191-208
11784742
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
9176953
Nature. 2002 Aug 8;418(6898):633-6
12167860
Perception. 2006;35(9):1219-32
17120842
AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1954 Apr;53(4):495-504
14360880
J Neurophysiol. 1999 Aug;82(2):909-24
10444686
Exp Brain Res. 1978 Apr 14;31(4):523-45
658179
Vision Res. 2005 Jan;45(1):75-89
15571739
J Neurophysiol. 1986 Jul;56(1):243-59
3746399
Vis Neurosci. 1988;1(4):395-414
3154808
Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1293-313
11800458
Nature. 1998 Oct 15;395(6703):689-93
9790188
J Physiol. 1967 Nov;193(2):327-42
6065881
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
9176952
J Vis. 2004 Mar 30;4(3):209-23
15086311
Vision Res. 2003 Nov;43(24):2479-92
13129536
J Neurosci. 2006 Sep 6;26(36):9098-106
16957066
Vision Res. 2006 Jan;46(1-2):1-13
16129469