Combining Binocular and Monocular Curvature Features

A study is reported of the perception of visual surfaces in wire-frame stimuli generated by combinations of monocular surface contours and binocular disparity that provide differing information about 3-D relief. Observers vary considerably in the relative contribution made by the binocular and monocular cues to the perception of overall 3-D form. Without training, many observers may entirely fail to perceive surface curvature from the binocular disparity patterns, interpreting the form of the surface only according to the monocular information. For other observers, both cues contribute to the end percept, with the monocular interpretation dominating where the disparity information indicates planarity and with disparity dominating where disparity information suggests curvature and the monocular interpretation suggests planarity. Where stereo and monocular interpretations indicate inconsistent surface curvature features at a common location, more complex resolution strategies are suggested.

[1]  J. P. Cavanagh,et al.  Reconstructing the third dimension: Interactions between color, texture, motion, binocular disparity, and shape , 1987, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[2]  J. Ninio,et al.  Speed and accuracy of 3d interpretation of linear stereograms , 1988, Vision Research.

[3]  Kent A. Stevens,et al.  The Visual Interpretation of Surface Contours , 1981, Artif. Intell..

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

[5]  K. A. Stevens,et al.  Binocular depth from surfaces versus volumes. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  C. Tyler.  Stereoscopic Vision: Cortical Limitations and a Disparity Scaling Effect , 1973, Science.

[8]  B Gillam,et al.  Postfusional latency in stereoscopic slant perception and the primitives of stereopsis. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Allen Brookes,et al.  Integrating stereopsis with monocular interpretations of planar surfaces , 1988, Vision Research.

[10]  T. Collett.  Extrapolating and interpolating surfaces in depth , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[11]  B. Rogers,et al.  Anisotropies in the perception of three-dimensional surfaces. , 1983, Science.

[12]  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.

[13]  H. Wallach,et al.  Two forms of retinal disparity , 1976 .

[14]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[15]  K. A. Stevens,et al.  The Analogy between Stereo Depth and Brightness , 1989, Perception.

[16]  Charles Wheatstone.  LXX. The bakerian lecture.—Contributions to the physiology of vision.—Part the second. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phænomena of binocular vision (continued) , 1852 .

[17]  William M. Youngs.  The influence of perspective and disparity cues on the perception of slant , 1976, Vision Research.

[18]  B Gillam,et al.  Evidence for disparity change as the primary stimulus for stereoscopic processing , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[20]  J. Cutting,et al.  Minimodularity and the perception of layout. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  B. Gillam,et al.  Perception of slant when perspective and stereopsis conflict: experiments with aniseikonic lenses. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  H. Barrow,et al.  RECOVERING INTRINSIC SCENE CHARACTERISTICS FROM IMAGES , 1978 .