On the preattentive accessibility of stereoscopic disparity: Evidence from visual search

We examined the generality of the claim that stereoscopic disparity is detectable in parallel across the visual field. Using a search paradigm with random-dot stereograms, we varied the relative disparity of target and distractor items. When both target and distractors had crossed disparities, both search functions (i.e., target in front of distractors and target behind distractors) were linear with positive slopes. When both target and distractors had uncrossed disparities, the pattern of results depended upon whether the target was in front of or behind the distractors—specifically, when the target was in front of the distractors, search functions were similar to those seen for “crossed” search, but when the target was behind the distractors, a nonlinear search function was found. Finally, when the target and distractors straddled the plane of fixation, a nonlinear search function was found when the target was in front of the distractors; however, when the target was behind the distractors, a linear search function with a large positive slope was found. We show that the nonlinear search functions are consistent with the effects of an intervening global surface percept. We also show that the size of the stimulus display may be a factor in some relative depth cases. Additionally, we replicate Steinman’s (1987) finding that search is parallel when the distractors are located at the plane of fixation and the target disparity is crossed, eliminating monocular and spatial cues to target presence that may have been present in his original study. In a final control experiment, we showed that reaction times did not increase with set size when observers performed another kind of perceptual task on similar random-dot stereogram displays. This eliminates the possibility that some of the results obtained here can be explained by increases in the difficulty of perceiving/fusing the stimuli when the number of distractors is increased.

[1]  B JULESZ,et al.  Binocular Depth Perception without Familiarity Cues , 1964, Science.

[2]  M. De A review of the concept of "Panum's fusional areas". , 1966 .

[3]  W. Richards,et al.  Anomalous stereoscopic depth perception. , 1971, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[4]  James T. Townsend,et al.  A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes , 1971 .

[5]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Parallel processing of multielement displays , 1972 .

[6]  O. Jones Effect of phloridzin and phloroglucinol on apple shoots , 1976, Nature.

[7]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  Learning-like phenomena in stereopsis , 1976, Nature.

[8]  A. Treisman,et al.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions , 1986, Nature.

[10]  S B Steinman,et al.  Serial and Parallel Search in Pattern Vision? , 1987, Perception.

[11]  Casper J. Erkelens,et al.  Fusional limits for a large random-dot stereogram , 1988, Vision Research.

[12]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[13]  V. S. Ramachandran,et al.  Perception of shape from shading , 1988, Nature.

[14]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[15]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Effect of surface medium on visual search for orientation and size features. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  11 – FORM PERCEPTION AND ATTENTION: Striate Cortex and Beyond , 1990 .

[18]  J. Townsend Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and Should) be Distinguished , 1990 .

[19]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  A Cohen,et al.  Density effects in conjunction search: evidence for a coarse location mechanism of feature integration. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  M. Bravo,et al.  The role of attention in different visual-search tasks , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  A J O'Toole,et al.  Learning to See Random-Dot Stereograms , 1992, Perception.

[23]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Surfaces versus features in visual search , 1992, Nature.

[24]  J. Wolfe “Effortless” texture segmentation and “parallel” visual search are not the same thing , 1992, Vision Research.

[25]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Limits of focused attention in three-dimensional space , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  J M Wolfe,et al.  Asymmetrical Effect of Crossed and Uncrossed Disparity on Stereoscopic Capture , 1993, Perception.

[27]  J. Theeuwes Endogenous and Exogenous Control of Visual Selection , 1994, Perception.

[28]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[29]  John Porrill,et al.  Interaction of stereo and texture cues in the perception of three-dimensional steps , 1995, Vision Research.