Monovision and the Misperception of Motion

Burge, Johannes; Rodríguez-López, Víctor; Dorronsoro, Carlos

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.06.070

Cited by 37 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Across observers, the blurrier eye was processed 2.1ms faster on average (SD=0.5ms). These findings replicate the primary result of Burge et al (2019).…”

Section: Experiments 2: Trial Lensessupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The transmittance is given by (4) where is the optical density of the filter. We have previously verified that this procedure-using 'virtual' neutral density filters-yields results that are equivalent to using real neutral density filters (Burge et al, 2019).…”

Section: Interocular Differences In Luminancementioning

confidence: 78%

“…In some scenarios, the distance misestimates can be substantial. Burge et al (2019) reported that, for an individual observer with a typical monovision correction strength of 1.5D, a cyclist moving left to right at 15mph at a distance of 16ft may be estimated to be at 25ft. This overestimation of 9ft is approximately the width of a narrow lane of traffic.…”

Section: Figure 1 Reverse Pulfrich Effect Classic Pulfrich Effect mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interocular difference in processing speed (i.e. interocular delay) is linearly related to the interocular difference in focus error (9) where and are the slope and intercept of the best line fit via least squared regression (Burge et al, 2019). Just as with blur differences, the interocular delay is linearly related to the difference between the optical densities of the virtual filters in the two eyes.…”

Section: Quantifying Differences In Processing Speed From Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These mismatches in processing speed imply that monovision corrections, which are most often delivered by contact lenses, can cause substantial misperceptions of motion (Burge et al, 2019). It may be advisable for optometrists and ophthalmologists to make their patients aware of these motion illusions when prescribing monovision, just as it is commonplace to motion the associated decrease in stereoacuity (Erickson & Schor, 1990;McGill & Erickson, 1988;Westheimer & McKee, 1980).…”

Section: Experiments 1: Contact Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Contact lenses can cause the reverse Pulfrich effect and anti-Pulfrich monovision corrections can eliminate it

Rodríguez-López

Dorronsoro

Burge

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interocular differences in image blur can cause dramatic misperceptions of the distance and three-dimensional direction of moving objects. This new illusion-the reverse Pulfrich effect-is caused by the optical conditions induced by monovision, a common correction for presbyopia. Fortunately, anti-Pulfrich monovision corrections, in which the blurring lens is slightly darkened, can eliminate the illusion for a wide range of viewing conditions. However, the reverse Pulfrich effect and the efficacy of anti-Pulfrich corrections have previously been demonstrated only with trial lenses. This situation should be addressed, for both clinical and scientific reasons. First, monovision is most commonly prescribed with contact lenses. It is important to replicate these effects in the most common monovision delivery system. Second, trial lenses of different powers, unlike contacts, cause large magnification differences between the eyes. To confidently attribute the reverse Pulfrich effect to differences in optical blur between the eyes, and to ensure that the reported effect sizes are reliable, one must control for magnification. Here, in a within observer study with five separate experiments, we demonstrate i) that contact lenses induce reverse Pulfrich effects that are indistinguishable from those induced by trial lenses, ii) that overall magnification differences do not cause or impact the Pulfrich effect, and iii) that anti-Pulfrich corrections (i.e. darkening the blurring lens) are equally effective when induced by contact lenses and by trial lenses.

show abstract

“…Across observers, the blurrier eye was processed 2.1ms faster on average (SD=0.5ms). These findings replicate the primary result of Burge et al (2019).…”

Section: Experiments 2: Trial Lensessupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Interocular Differences In Luminancementioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Figure 1 Reverse Pulfrich Effect Classic Pulfrich Effect mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quantifying Differences In Processing Speed From Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%