Does perceptual adaptation to telestereoscopically enhanced depth depend on the recalibration of binocular disparity?

Fisher, S. K.; Ebenholtz, Sheldon M.

doi:10.3758/bf03208189

Cited by 25 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wallach et al (1963) and Epstein and Morgan-Paap (1974) both reported disparity recalibration resulting from brief viewing of stimuli in which disparity conflicted with other visual cues. However, these observed perceptual aftereffects are largely attributable to changes in tonic vergence (Fisher and Ebenholtz, 1986;Fisher and Ciuffreda, 1990) and "normalization," or "satiation" slant aftereffects (e.g., Köhler and Emery, 1947). The present study provides a clear demonstration of visual recalibration, driven by another visual cue, and moreover offers a description of the conditions under which this recalibration is optimized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Efficient Visual Recalibration from Either Visual or Haptic Feedback: The Importance of Being Wrong

Adams¹,

Kerrigan²,

Graf³

2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human visual system adapts to the changing statistics of its environment. For example, the light-from-above prior, an assumption that aids the interpretation of ambiguous shading information, can be modified by haptic (touch) feedback. Here we investigate the mechanisms that drive this adaptive learning. In particular, we ask whether visual information can be as effective as haptics in driving visual recalibration and whether increased information (feedback from multiple modalities) induces faster learning.During several hours' training, feedback encouraged observers to modify their existing light-from-above assumption. Feedback was one of the following: (1) haptic only, (2) haptic and stereoscopic (providing binocular shape information), or (3) stereoscopic only. Haptic-only feedback resulted in substantial learning; the perceived shape of shaded objects was modified in accordance with observers' new light priors. However, the addition of continuous visual feedback (condition 2) substantially reduced learning. When visual-only feedback was provided intermittently (condition 3), mimicking the time course of the haptic feedback of conditions 1 and 2, substantial learning returned.The intermittent nature of conflict information, or feedback, appears critical for learning. It causes an initial, erroneous percept to be corrected. Contrary to previous proposals, we found no particular advantage for cross-modal feedback. Instead, we suggest that an "oops" factor drives efficient learning; recalibration is prioritized when a mismatch exists between sequential representations of an object property. This "oops" factor appears important both across and within sensory modalities, suggesting a general principle for perceptual learning and recalibration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Efficient Visual Recalibration from Either Visual or Haptic Feedback: The Importance of Being Wrong

Adams¹,

Kerrigan²,

Graf³

2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a small literature on indirect effects of accommodation on perception. Fisher and Ebenholtz (1986), Mon-Williams and Tresilian (2000), and Wallach and Norris (1963) observed an influence of accommodation on depth interpretation (for a negative result, see Ritter, 1977). Heinemann, Tulving, andNachmias (1959) andvon Holst (1973) observed an influence of accommodation on perceived size.…”

Section: Direct Versus Indirect Influence Of Focus Cues On Perceived mentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus cues affect perceived depth

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depth information from focus cues--accommodation and the gradient of retinal blur--is typically incorrect in three-dimensional (3-D) displays because the light comes from a planar display surface. If the visual system incorporates information from focus cues into its calculation of 3-D scene parameters, this could cause distortions in perceived depth even when the 2-D retinal images are geometrically correct. In Experiment 1 we measured the direct contribution of focus cues to perceived slant by varying independently the physical slant of the display surface and the slant of a simulated surface specified by binocular disparity (binocular viewing) or perspective/texture (monocular viewing). In the binocular condition, slant estimates were unaffected by display slant. In the monocular condition, display slant had a systematic effect on slant estimates. Estimates were consistent with a weighted average of slant from focus cues and slant from disparity/texture, where the cue weights are determined by the reliability of each cue. In Experiment 2, we examined whether focus cues also have an indirect effect on perceived slant via the distance estimate used in disparity scaling. We varied independently the simulated distance and the focal distance to a disparity-defined 3-D stimulus. Perceived slant was systematically affected by changes in focal distance. Accordingly, depth constancy (with respect to simulated distance) was significantly reduced when focal distance was held constant compared to when it varied appropriately with the simulated distance to the stimulus. The results of both experiments show that focus cues can contribute to estimates of 3-D scene parameters. Inappropriate focus cues in typical 3-D displays may therefore contribute to distortions in perceived space.

show abstract

“…One possibility is that vergence information provides an approximate calibration for stereo depth [9,10]. Structure from motion provides accurate shape information, assuming object rigidity, but the near/far relations between the object and the observer are not specified [5].…”

Section: B Other Depth Cues and Conflictsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This hypothesis is countered by evidence that stereopsis affects the degree of apparent depth in a SFM display [8]. Overall, it seems clear that depth derived solely from disparity information is inaccurate [9], and can be recalibrated dynamically [10,11,12], although ordinal information provided from stereo can be extremely precise. This suggests that dynamically changing stereo depth parameters is probably viable and certainly worth studying.…”

Section: B Other Depth Cues and Conflictsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic adjustment of stereo display parameters

Ware

Gobrecht

Paton

1998

IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-A review of the facts about human stereo vision leads to the conclusion that the human stereo processing mechanism is very flexible in the presence of other depth cues. Stereopsis seems to provide only local additional depth information, rather than defining the overall 3D geometry of a perceived scene. This paper reports on an experimental approach to adjusting stereo parameters automatically and thereby providing a low eye strain, easily accommodated stereo view for computer graphics applications. To this end the concept of virtual eye separation is defined. Experiment 1 shows that dynamic changes in virtual eye separation are not noticed if they occur over a period of a few seconds. Experiment 2 shows that when subjects are given control over their virtual eye separation, they change it depending on the amount of depth in the scene. Based partly on these results, an algorithm is presented for enhancing stereo depth cues for moving computer generated 3D images. It has the effect of doubling the stereo depth in flat scenes and limiting the stereo depth for deep scenes. It also reduces the occurrence of double images and the discrepancy between focus and vergence. The algorithm is applied dynamically in real time with an optional damping factor applied so the disparities never change too abruptly. Finally Experiment 3 provides a qualitative assessment of the algorithm with a dynamic "flight" over a digital elevation map.

show abstract

Does perceptual adaptation to telestereoscopically enhanced depth depend on the recalibration of binocular disparity?

Cited by 25 publications

References 10 publications

Efficient Visual Recalibration from Either Visual or Haptic Feedback: The Importance of Being Wrong

Efficient Visual Recalibration from Either Visual or Haptic Feedback: The Importance of Being Wrong

Focus cues affect perceived depth

Dynamic adjustment of stereo display parameters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About