Color constrains depth in da Vinci stereopsis for camouflage but not occlusion.

Monocular regions that occur with binocular viewing of natural scenes can produce a strong perception of depth--"da Vinci stereopsis." They occur either when part of the background is occluded in one eye, or when a nearer object is camouflaged against a background surface in one eye's view. There has been some controversy over whether da Vinci depth is constrained by geometric or ecological factors. Here we show that the color of the monocular region constrains the depth perceived from camouflage, but not occlusion, as predicted by ecological considerations. Quantitative depth was found in both cases, but for camouflage only when the color of the monocular region matched the binocular background. Unlike previous reports, depth failed even when nonmatching colors satisfied conditions for perceptual transparency. We show that placing a colored line at the boundary between the binocular and monocular regions is sufficient to eliminate depth from camouflage. When both the background and the monocular region contained vertical contours that could be fused, some observers appeared to use fusion, and others da Vinci constraints, supporting the existence of a separate da Vinci mechanism. The results show that da Vinci stereopsis incorporates color constraints and is more complex than previously assumed.

[1]  S. Nakamizo,et al.  Depth scaling in phantom and monocular gap stereograms using absolute distance information , 2006, Vision Research.

[2]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Quantitative depth for a phantom surface can be based on cyclopean occlusion cues alone , 1999, Vision Research.

[3]  G. Nyman,et al.  Depth Asymmetry in da Vinci Stereopsis , 1996, Vision Research.

[4]  Michael Cook,et al.  Monocular Discs in the Occlusion Zones of Binocular Surfaces Do Not Have Quantitative Depth—A Comparison with Panum's Limiting Case , 2003, Perception.

[5]  R. Lawson,et al.  Stereopsis and anomalous contour. , 1967, Vision research.

[6]  Charles Wheatstone.  On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved phenomena of binocular vision. , 1962 .

[7]  Peter Lennie,et al.  Binocular integration of partially occluded surfaces , 2010 .

[8]  Laurence R. Harris,et al.  The Influence of monocular regions on the binocular perception of spatial layout , 2011 .

[9]  K Nakayama,et al.  Experiencing and perceiving visual surfaces. , 1992, Science.

[10]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Da vinci stereopsis: Depth and subjective occluding contours from unpaired image points , 1990, Vision Research.

[11]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[12]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[13]  W H Ehrenstein,et al.  Early Demonstrations of Subjective Contours, Amodal Completion, and Depth from Half-Occlusions: “Stereoscopic Experiments with Silhouettes” by Adolf von Szily (1921) , 1998, Perception.

[14]  M. Zeldin,et al.  Content and Context , 2011 .

[15]  F Metelli,et al.  The perception of transparency. , 1974, Scientific American.

[16]  H. Ono,et al.  Ecologically Invalid Monocular Texture Leads to Longer Perceptual Latencies in Random-Dot Stereograms , 1999, Perception.

[17]  Susan G Wardle,et al.  Phantom surfaces in da Vinci stereopsis. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[18]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  Greater depth seen with phantom stereopsis is coded at the early stages of visual processing , 2005, Vision Research.

[19]  Michael Cook,et al.  Depth of monocular elements in a binocular scene: the conditions for da Vinci stereopsis. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  C. Wheatstone.  XVIII. Contributions to the physiology of vision. —Part the first. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision , 1962, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.

[21]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  Content and context of monocular regions determine perceived depth in random dot, unpaired background and phantom stereograms , 2002, Vision Research.

[22]  B Gillam,et al.  The Role of Monocular Regions in Stereoscopic Displays , 1988, Perception.

[23]  Ning Qian,et al.  Solving da Vinci stereopsis with depth-edge-selective V2 cells , 2007, Vision Research.

[24]  K Nakayama,et al.  Binocular visual surface perception. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Barton L. Anderson,et al.  The role of partial occlusion in stereopsis , 1994, Nature.

[26]  Pascal Mamassian,et al.  The role of transparency in da Vinci stereopsis , 2011, Vision Research.

[27]  Barbara Gillam.  Matching needed for stereopsis , 1995, Nature.

[28]  B. Julesz.  Foundations of Cyclopean Perception , 1971 .

[29]  Barbara Gillam,et al.  The Stereoscopic Sliver: A Comparison of Duration Thresholds for Fully Stereoscopic and Unmatched Versions , 2007, Perception.

[30]  Peter Lennie,et al.  Binocular integration of partially occluded surfaces , 2002, Vision Research.

[31]  Martin Kaye,et al.  Stereopsis without binocular correlation , 1978, Vision Research.

[32]  Inna Tsirlin,et al.  da Vinci decoded: does da Vinci stereopsis rely on disparity? , 2012, Journal of vision.