First and second-order contributions to surface interpolation

Comparisons of 1st- and 2nd-order stereopsis have typically employed isolated, or local, narrow-band targets. While these experiments have revealed a great deal about the distinction between these two types of processing, such stimuli are rare in the natural environment. Instead, local disparity signals are more likely to be part of extended surfaces that very smoothly in depth. The aim of the experiments presented here is to determine the relative contribution of 1st- and 2nd-order stereopsis to the perception of depth-modulated surfaces. Stereothresholds were measured under a range of conditions designed to isolate either 1st- or 2nd-order processing. The results demonstrate that while 2nd-order stereopsis provides local depth estimates for individual texture elements, 1st-order processing is essential to the global interpolation of those estimates across surfaces.

[1]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Differential spatial displacement discrimination thresholds for Gabor patches , 1988, Vision Research.

[2]  R. Hess,et al.  D max for stereopsis depends on size, not spatial frequency content , 1995, Vision Research.

[3]  ILONA KOVÁCS,et al.  Non-Fourier Information in Bandpass Noise Patterns , 1997, Vision Research.

[4]  Refractor.  Vision , 2000, The Lancet.

[5]  D. Badcock,et al.  Depth-increment detection function for individual spatial channels. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[6]  F. Kingdom,et al.  Contrast thresholds for stereoscopic depth identification with isoluminant and isochromatic stimuli , 1994, Vision Research.

[7]  Laurie M. Wilcox,et al.  Scale selection for second-order (non-linear) stereopsis , 1997, Vision Research.

[8]  Clifton M. Schor,et al.  Is edge information for stereoacuity spatially channeled? , 1989, Vision Research.

[9]  G. J. Mitchison,et al.  Interpolation and the detection of fine structure in stereoscopic matching , 1987, Vision Research.

[10]  C. Schor,et al.  Disparity range for local stereopsis as a function of luminance spatial frequency , 1983, Vision Research.

[11]  B. Julesz,et al.  Independent Spatial-Frequency-Tuned Channels in Binocular Fusion and Rivalry , 1975 .

[12]  Randolph Blake,et al.  On the accuracy of surface reconstruction from disparity interpolation , 1995, Vision Research.

[13]  K. N. Ogle.  Precision and validity of stereoscopic depth perception from double images. , 1953, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[14]  G. J. Mitchison,et al.  Interpolation in stereoscopic matching , 1985, Nature.

[15]  Laurie M. Wilcox,et al.  Linear and non-linear filtering in stereopsis , 1994, Vision Research.

[16]  Laurie M. Wilcox,et al.  Is the site of non-linear filtering in stereopsis before or after binocular combination? , 1996, Vision Research.

[17]  J. Pokorny.  Foundations of Cyclopean Perception , 1972 .

[18]  G. J. Mitchison,et al.  The resolution of ambiguous stereoscopic matches by interpolation , 1987, Vision Research.

[19]  L K Cormack,et al.  Interactions of Spatial Frequency and Unequal Monocular Contrasts in Stereopsis , 1997, Perception.

[20]  H. Smallman,et al.  Size-disparity correlation in stereopsis at contrast threshold. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.