Two historical strands in studying visual direction<sup>1</sup>

Ono, Hiroshi; Wade, Nicholas

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5884.2011.00506.x

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Particular opposition was directed to the suggestion that “similar pictures falling on corresponding points of the two retinae may appear double and in different places” [3] (p. 384) and Hering [21] referred to it as the ‘Wheatstone experiment’. The experiment was repeated by several German vision scientists whose observations differed from Wheatstone’s [15]. Brewster [2] also took issue with Wheatstone’s observations and wrote: “The phenomenon described by Mr. Wheatstone is an illusion, arising from actual disappearance of one or more parts, or even of the whole of one of the lines” [2] (p. 358).…”

Section: Binocular Rivalrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It displayed clearly Brewster’s peripheral (retinal) interpretation of binocular vision in contrast to Wheatstone’s conclusion that they were based on central processes [4]. Wheatstone referred to the distinction as one between physical and mental philosophy [14,15,16,17]. Fourteen years after his first memoir, Wheatstone [10] published his second in which he described and illustrated an adjustable mirror stereoscope, a prism stereoscope, and a pseudoscope for reversing disparities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ocular Equivocation: The Rivalry Between Wheatstone and Brewster

Wade

2019

Vision

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ocular equivocation was the term given by Brewster in 1844 to binocular contour rivalry seen with Wheatstone’s stereoscope. The rivalries between Wheatstone and Brewster were personal as well as perceptual. In the 1830s, both Wheatstone and Brewster came to stereoscopic vision armed with their individual histories of research on vision. Brewster was an authority on physical optics and had devised the kaleidoscope; Wheatstone extended his research on audition to render acoustic patterns visible with his kaleidophone or phonic kaleidoscope. Both had written on subjective visual phenomena, a topic upon which they first clashed at the inaugural meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1832 (the year Wheatstone made the first stereoscopes). Wheatstone published his account of the mirror stereoscope in 1838; Brewster’s initial reception of it was glowing but he later questioned Wheatstone’s priority. They both described investigations of binocular contour rivalry but their interpretations diverged. As was the case for stereoscopic vision, Wheatstone argued for central processing whereas Brewster’s analysis was peripheral and based on visible direction. Brewster’s lenticular stereoscope and binocular camera were described in 1849. They later clashed over Brewster’s claim that the Chimenti drawings were made for a 16th-century stereoscope. The rivalry between Wheatstone and Brewster is illustrated with anaglyphs that can be viewed with red/cyan glasses and in Universal Freeview format; they include rivalling ‘perceptual portraits’ as well as examples of the stimuli used to study ocular equivocation.

show abstract

Section: Binocular Rivalrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ocular Equivocation: The Rivalry Between Wheatstone and Brewster

Wade

2019

Vision

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Duboscq took out a patent for his instrument in 1852; it was a slightly modified form of Lowdon's model, with a ground glass endplate so that both printed and transparent stereophotographs could be observed. Brewster (1844a) interpreted stereoscopic phenomena in terms of visual direction: depth was seen at the location of intersection of lines of direction from each eye (see Ono & Wade, 2012). Brewster (1830) initially presented his theory in a long encyclopedia essay on optics; his theory was virtually unchanged by Wheatstone's instrument and by the observations he obtained with it.…”

Section: The Stereoscopementioning

confidence: 99%

Early studies of binocular and stereoscopic vision¹

Wade¹,

Ono²

2012

Jpn Psychol Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The revolution in binocular vision (in the 1830s) was occasioned by Wheatstone's invention and application of the stereoscope to demonstrate depth from retinal disparity. The stereoscope, perhaps more than any other instrument, ushered in the era of experimentation to vision. It fulfilled the scientific desire to examine binocular vision by observation and experiment. The stereoscope is a simple optical device that presents slightly different figures to each eye. If these figures have appropriate horizontal displacements or disparities then depth is seen. Wheatstone achieved for space perception what Newton had for color vision: the phenomena could be removed from their object base. Newton's decomposition of white light into its spectral components removed the perception of color from the colored objects that naturally conveyed it. Wheatstone's decomposition of stereoscopic depth into its disparate projections to each eye removed the perception of depth from the solid objects that naturally conveyed it. Color and depth could be examined in the laboratory, and the methods of the natural sciences could be applied to their investigation.

show abstract

“…Following the presentation of papers involving experimental studies, the next two provide a review on binocular and stereoscopic vision from antiquity to around the period of Wheatstone (Wade & Ono, 2012) and on binocular visual direction from antiquity to nowadays (Ono & Wade, 2012). Wade and Ono (2012) in their paper presented concepts, tools and observations and discussed how the invention of the stereoscopes affected subsequent research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also claimed that what Wheatstone achieved for space perception with his stereoscope is comparable to what Newton had achieved with his prism for color vision. Ono and Wade (2012) maintained that early on there were two streams in this area of research: the optical approach and the observational approach. It is argued that initially the optical approach was widely accepted by the scientific community, but later the validity of the rules of visual direction that were developed based on the observational approach was verified experimentally and the latter “won the day.” It is highly likely that current researchers of binocular stereopsis may not pay much attention to the early history of research in this field before Wheatstone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%