The Interaction of Oculomotor Cues and Stimulus Size in Stereoscopic Depth Constancy

In the natural world, observers perceive an object to have a relatively fixed size and depth over a wide range of distances. Retinal image size and binocular disparity are to some extent scaled with distance to give observers a measure of size constancy. The angle of convergence of the two eyes and their accommodative states are one source of scaling information, but even at close range this must be supplemented by other cues. We have investigated how angular size and oculomotor state interact in the perception of size and depth at different distances. Computer-generated images of planar and stereoscopically simulated 3-D surfaces covered with an irregular blobby texture were viewed on a computer monitor. The monitor rested on a movable sled running on rails within a darkened tunnel. An observer looking into the tunnel could see nothing but the simulated surface so that oculomotor signals provided the major potential cues to the distance of the image. Observers estimated the height of the surface, their distance from it, or the stereoscopically simulated depth within it over viewing distances which ranged from 45 cm to 130 cm. The angular width of the images lay between 2 deg and 10 deg. Estimates of the magnitude of a constant simulated depth dropped with increasing viewing distance when surfaces were of constant angular size. But with surfaces of constant physical size, estimates were more nearly independent of viewing distance. At any one distance, depths appeared to be greater, the smaller the angular size of the image. With most observers, the influence of angular size on perceived depth grew with increasing viewing distance. These findings suggest that there are two components to scaling. One is independent of angular size and related to viewing distance. The second component is related to angular size, and the weighting accorded to it grows with viewing distance. Control experiments indicate that in the tunnel, oculomotor state provides the principal cue to viewing distance. Thus, the contribution of oculomotor signals to depth scaling is gradually supplanted by other cues as viewing distance grows. Binocular estimates of the heights and distances of planar surfaces of different sizes revealed that angular size and viewing distance interact in a similar way to determine perceived size and perceived distance.

[1]  Leon N. McLin,et al.  Changing size (looming) as a stimulus to accommodation and vergence , 1988, Vision Research.

[2]  Jacob Nachmias,et al.  The Effect of Oculomotor Adjustments on Apparent Size , 1959 .

[3]  W C GOGEL,et al.  PERCEPTION OF DEPTH FROM BINOCULAR DISPARITY. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  M. Ritter,et al.  Effect of disparity and viewing distance on perceived depth , 1977 .

[5]  H. Ono,et al.  Depth perception as a function of motion parallax and absolute-distance information. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  R. Cormack.  Stereoscopic depth perception at far viewing distances , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  J. T. Enright.  Perspective vergence: Oculomotor responses to line drawings , 1987, Vision Research.

[8]  G J Andersen,et al.  Dynamic occlusion in the perception of rotation in depth , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The role of image size and retinal motion in the computation of absolute distance by the Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) , 1990, Vision Research.

[10]  W. Warren,et al.  Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  T. Collett,et al.  Does vertical disparity scale the perception of stereoscopic depth? , 1991, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  H. Leibowitz,et al.  Role of changes in accommodation and convergence in the perception of size. , 1966, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[13]  J. T. Enright,et al.  Art and the Oculomotor System: Perspective Illustrations Evoke Vergence Changes , 1987, Perception.

[14]  Robert T. Hennessy,et al.  Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy , 1972 .

[15]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Integration of depth modules: stereo and shading. , 1988, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[16]  George J. Andersen,et al.  The use of occlusion to resolve ambiguity in parallel projections , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  B J Rogers,et al.  The Appearance of Surfaces Specified by Motion Parallax and Binocular Disparity , 1989, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[18]  Walter C. Gogel.  Perceived Frontal Size as a Determiner of Perceived Binocular Depth , 1960 .

[19]  William Epstein,et al.  Size and distance judgments under reduced conditions of viewing , 1969 .

[20]  L. Mays.  Neural control of vergence eye movements: convergence and divergence neurons in midbrain. , 1984, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  D Regan,et al.  Human ocular vergence movements induced by changing size and disparity. , 1986, The Journal of physiology.

[22]  Hans Wallach,et al.  Familiar size and linear perspective as distance cues in stereoscopic depth constancy , 1980 .

[23]  H. Collewijn,et al.  Eye movements and stereopsis during dichoptic viewing of moving random-dot stereograms , 1985, Vision Research.

[24]  W. H. Ittelson.  Size as a cue to distance: static localization. , 1951, The American journal of psychology.

[25]  B. G. Cumming,et al.  Vertical disparities and perception of three-dimensional shape , 1991, Nature.

[26]  Alfred H. Holway,et al.  Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant , 1941 .

[27]  E. E. Maddox.  The Clinical Use of Prisms , 1889, Bristol Medico-Chirurgical Journal (1883).

[28]  S. Judge,et al.  Neurons in the monkey midbrain with activity related to vergence eye movement and accommodation. , 1986, Journal of neurophysiology.

[29]  William Epstein,et al.  Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size? , 1969 .

[30]  W C Gogel,et al.  A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  G. Sperling,et al.  Tradeoffs between stereopsis and proximity luminance covariance as determinants of perceived 3D structure , 1986, Vision Research.

[32]  H. Wallach,et al.  The constancy of stereoscopic depth. , 1963, The American journal of psychology.

[33]  R. Hetherington.  The Perception of the Visual World , 1952 .

[34]  H. C. Longuet-Higgins.  The Role of the Vertical Dimension in Stereoscopic Vision , 1982, Perception.

[35]  J. M. Foley.  Binocular distance perception. , 1980, Psychological review.

[36]  S Saida,et al.  The roles of convergence and apparent distance in depth constancy with motion parallax , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  TSUNEHIRO TAKEDA,et al.  Dynamic Eye Accommodation Evoked by Apparent Distances , 1990, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.