Depth Asymmetry in da Vinci Stereopsis

We investigated processes that determine the depth localization of monocular points which have no unambiguous depth. It is known that horizontally adjacent binocular objects are used in depth localization and for a distance of 25-40 min arc monocular points localize to the leading edge of a depth constraint zone, which is an area defined by the visibility lines between which the points in the real world must be. We demonstrate that this rule is not valid in complex depth scenes. Adding other disparate objects to the scene changes the localization of the monocular point in a way that cannot be explained by the da Vinci explanation of monocular-binocular integration. The effect of additional disparate objects is asymmetric in depth: a crossed object does not affect the da Vinci effect but an uncrossed object biases the depth localization of monocular objects to uncrossed direction. We conclude that a horizontally adjacent binocular plane does not completely determine the depth localization of a monocular point and that depth spreading from other binocular elements biases the localization process.

[1]  Richard L Gregory,et al.  Fusion and Rivalry of Illusory Contours , 1973 .

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

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

[4]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Subjective contours capture stereopsis , 1985, Nature.

[5]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Effects of voluntary eye movement and convergence on the binocular appreciation of depth , 1972 .

[6]  E. Wist,et al.  The growth of the equidistance tendency over time , 1968 .

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

[8]  B. Julesz,et al.  A disparity gradient limit for binocular fusion. , 1980, Science.

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

[10]  W. Gogel,et al.  THE TENDENCY TO SEE OBJECTS AS EQUIDISTANT AND ITS INVERSE RELATION TO LATERAL SEPARATION , 1956 .

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

[12]  P Mustillo,et al.  Binocular mechanisms mediating crossed and uncrossed stereopsis. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  B. Julesz,et al.  Modifications of the Classical Notion of Panum's Fusional Area , 1980, Perception.

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

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

[16]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Toward a general theory of stereopsis: binocular matching, occluding contours, and fusion. , 1994, Psychological review.

[17]  J. Mayhew,et al.  The Relationship between Apparent Depth and Disparity in Rivalrous-Texture Stereograms , 1978, Perception.

[18]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry , 1990, Vision Research.

[19]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Illusory Occluding Contours and Surface Formation by Depth Propagation , 1992, Perception.