Phase difference function in binocular flicker.

Foley, P. J.; Stager, Paul

doi:10.1037/h0082888

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1l)5~a. b. c. d: Baker & Batt, 1951: Foley & Stager, 1965: Ireland, 1950Kinsbourne & Coughlin, 1969: Perrin, 1954Thomas, 1954Thomas, , 1955Thomas, , 1956. Moreover, the differences in CFF between these two conditions, although not of the magnitude originally anticipated by Sherrington, are larger.…”

Section: Flicker Fusion Thresholdmentioning

confidence: 86%

The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation

Blake

Fox

1973

Perception & Psychophysics

284

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments that compare monocular and binocular visual performance of human psychophysical Os on a variety of visual tasks are reviewed, The review attempts to include all experiments published in English in this century, excluding work on stereopsis, rivalry, and evoked potentials, The concept of probability summation as a baseline for assessing the presence of neural summation is discussed, and the assumptions of several models for estimating probability summation are considered. Experiments are classified in terms of visual task, major categories being increment detection, flicker fusion, brightness magnitude, and contour resolution. A major conclusion is that binocular performance is superior for essentially all task categories and in most cases by a magnitude greater than that predicted by appropriate probability summation models.The cardinal feature of the binocular visual system in man is the unification of the two separate monocular views into a binocular cyclopean view that betrays little trace of its monocular origins. Relatively little is known about the mechanism responsible for unification, although an examination of the physiology of the visual system reveals a number of features that seem expressly designed to promote unification. Some of the more prominent features are the partial crossing of the optic tracts at the optic chiasma and the elaborate system for the maintenance of conjugate eye movements. The existence of these features in man, and in binocular vertebrates in general, suggests an adaptive function of binocularity of sufficient magnitude to justify the survival of this complicated physiological organization. Yet the immediate advantage of having two eyes functioning as one is not obvious. The simple experiment of closing one eye does not result in any dramatic change in the appearance of the visual world. Rather, only by more stringent experimentation are the subtle advantages of binocularly joined eyes revealed.The purpose of this paper is to review those experiments undertaken in the 20th century that have compared monocular and binocular performance on a variety of visual tasks. The rubric under which such experiments are typically grouped is "binocular summation." These experiments compare the relative performance on some visual task (such as detection or form resolution) by a human S using one and both eyes. In the literature, this kind of inquiry into binocular vision is treated separately from investigations of stereopsis and of binocular rivalry; following that distinction, the voluminous research on these binocular phenomena is not included. A further exclusion is data

show abstract

Section: Flicker Fusion Thresholdmentioning

confidence: 86%

The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation

Blake

Fox

1973

Perception & Psychophysics

284

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He concluded that the "sensual reactions" of the "right and left corresponding retina-cerebral points, retain individually as regards time relations even when completely confluent by reference to visual space." In antiphase stimulation a decrement of CFF of no more than about 9% of inphase stimulation has since been confirmed repeatedly (Ireland, 1950;Baker & Bott, 1951;Perrin, 1954;Foley & Stager, 1965;Kinsbourne & Coughlin, 1969).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Fusion frequency as a function of number and phase of binocular stimuli

Fisher

Kinsbourne

1972

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is also evidence that the phase-difference function is asymrnetrical. Foley & Stager (1965) reported two experiments in which each pulse to the left eye was made to lag behind the corresponding pulse to the right eye in 45-deg steps, ranging from 0 to 180 deg in one experiment and from 180…”

Section: On the Asymmetry Of The Phase-difference Function In Binoculmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the asymmetry of the phase-difference function in binocular flicker

Corballis

1970

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phase difference function in binocular flicker.

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation

The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation

Fusion frequency as a function of number and phase of binocular stimuli

On the asymmetry of the phase-difference function in binocular flicker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About