No abstract

No abstract

Integral imaging has three display modes including real mode, virtual mode, and focused mode, and each mode has unique display characteristics. In this paper, the accommodation responses to the three-dimensional (3-D) targets reconstructed by each mode of the integral imaging display were measured and statistically analyzed. Through the least square method, standard deviation analysis, and t-test analysis, we found that the accommodation responses to the 3-D target reconstructed by the focused mode was more similar to that of the real target on the same depth position. Moreover, the closer to the central depth plane was, the steadier accommodation response 3-D targets could provide. These statistical analysis results are helpful to the design of integral imaging display device.

Purpose The mammalian brain can take into account the neural delays in visual information transmission from the retina to the cortex when accurately localizing the instantaneous position of moving objects by motion extrapolation. In this study, we wanted to investigate whether such extrapolation mechanism operates in a comparable fashion between the eyes in normally sighted and amblyopic observers. Methods To measure interocular extrapolation, we adapted a dichoptic version of the flash-lag effect (FLE) paradigm, in which a flashed bar is perceived to lag behind a moving bar when their two positions are physically aligned. Twelve adult subjects with amblyopia and 12 healthy controls participated in the experiment. We measured the FLE magnitude of the subjects under binocular, monocular, and dichoptic conditions. Results In controls, the FLE magnitude of binocular condition was significantly smaller than that of monocular conditions ( P ≤ 0.023), but there was no difference between monocular and dichoptic conditions. Subject with amblyopia exhibited a smaller FLE magnitude in the dichoptic condition when the moving bar was presented to the amblyopic eye and the flash to the fellow eye (DA condition) compared to the opposite way around (DF condition), consistent with a delay in the processing of the amblyopic eye ( P = 0.041). Conclusions Our observations confirm that trajectory extrapolation mechanisms transfer between the eyes of normal observers. However, such transfer may be impaired in amblyopia. The smaller FLE magnitude in DA compared to DF in patients with amblyopia could be due to an interocular delay in the amblyopic visual system. The observation that normal controls present a smaller FLE in binocular conditions raises the question whether a larger FLE is or is not an indicator of better motion processing and extrapolation.