Barbara J Gillam | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Amodal completion with background determines depth from monocular gap stereopsis.

Grove, Gillam, and Ono [Grove, P. M., Gillam, B. J., & Ono, H. (2002). Content and context of monocular regions determine perceived depth in random dot, unpaired background and phantom stereograms. Vision Research, 42, 1859-1870] reported that perceived depth in monocular gap stereograms [Gillam, B. J., Blackburn, S., & Nakayama, K. (1999). Stereopsis based on monocular gaps: Metrical encoding of depth and slant without matching contours. Vision Research, 39, 493-502] was attenuated when the color/texture in the monocular gap did not match the background. It appears that continuation of the gap with the background constitutes an important component of the stimulus conditions that allow a monocular gap in an otherwise binocular surface to be responded to as a depth step. In this report we tested this view using the conventional monocular gap stimulus of two identical grey rectangles separated by a gap in one eye but abutting to form a solid grey rectangle in the other. We compared depth seen at the gap for this stimulus with stimuli that were identical except for two additional small black squares placed at the ends of the gap. If the squares were placed stereoscopically behind the rectangle/gap configuration (appearing on the background) they interfered with the perceived depth at the gap. However when they were placed in front of the configuration this attenuation disappeared. The gap and the background were able under these conditions to complete amodally.

Color Perception↗

PubMed2006

The swinging doors of perception: stereomotion without binocular matching.

Until recently, it was considered necessary for features in the two eyes to be matched before the evaluation of differences in their locations (binocular disparities) could reveal depth information. Motion in depth can also be perceived binocularly from related changes in the locations of matched binocular features. However, unmatched features can arise when a binocular object occludes more distant features in one eye but not the other. The presence and extent of such features can provide quantitative depth information, although perceived depth relative to geometrical predictions may vary from one such arrangement to another. The ability of humans to perceive motion in depth from unmatched stimuli has not previously been explored. Here, we use B. Gillam, S. Blackburn, and K. Nakayama's (1999) "monocular gap" stimuli to investigate perception of motion in depth simulated by a change in the extent of a monocularly occluded feature in a binocular display. Settings of a motion in depth probe revealed that the magnitude of perceived motion in depth is generally as large as that for a stimulus containing matchable binocular features. We show that our stimuli provide disambiguating information not present in similar static stimuli. We conclude that in the computation of motion in depth, a binocular match is not required. A new cue-dynamic half-occlusion-can be used to reach an accurate percept.

Depth Perception↗

PubMed2006

Monocular transparency and unpaired stereopsis.

Howard and Duke [Howard, I. P. & Duke, P. A. (2003). Monocular transparency generates quantitative depth. Vision Research, 43, 2615-2621] recently proposed a new source of binocular information they claim is used to recover depth in stereoscopic displays. They argued that these displays lack conventional disparity and that the metrical depth experienced results from transparency rather than occlusion relations. Using a variety of modified versions of their stimuli, we show here that the conditions for transparency are not required to elicit the depth experienced in their stereograms. We demonstrate that quantitative and precise depth depended not on the presence of transparency but horizontal contours of the same contrast polarity. Depth was attenuated, particularly at larger target offsets, when horizontal contours had opposite contrast polarity for at least a portion of their length. We also show that a demonstration they used to control for the role of horizontal contours can be understood with previously identified mechanisms involved in the computations associated with stereoscopic occlusion. These results imply that the findings reported by Howard and Duke can be understood with mechanisms responsible for the computation of binocular disparity and stereoscopic occlusion.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

PubMed2005

The effect of surface placement and surface overlap on stereo slant contrast and enhancement.

Stereoscopic slant contrast is an apparent slant induced in a stereoscopically frontal plane surface (the test) opposite in direction to the specified stereoscopic slant of a neighbouring surface (the inducer). Test surfaces offset from the inducer in a direction collinear with the axis of slant (twist) show more contrast than those offset in a direction orthogonal to the axis of slant (hinge). We attribute this anisotropy to the presence and extent of a gradient of relative disparity in twist configurations and the absence of such a gradient in hinge configurations. This hypothesis was tested by measuring the perceived slant of the test and inducer surfaces for horizontal and vertical axes of inducer slant and collinear and orthogonal surface offsets. For vertical axis slant, the hypothesis was supported; contrast variations with position of the test surface could be explained by variations in relative slant. For horizontal axis slant, variations in contrast could be accounted for by normalisation of the slanted surface, with relative slant remaining constant. Two further experiments showed that the extent of the gradient of relative disparity rather than the area of texture overlap of the two surfaces best predicted the contrast results and that perceived relative slant did not vary with the absolute slants of the two surfaces. The arrangement of stereo surfaces is critical in predicting their relative slant.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Monocular transparency and unpaired stereopsis.

Howard and Duke [Howard, I. P. & Duke, P. A. (2003). Monocular transparency generates quantitative depth. Vision Research, 43, 2615-2621] recently proposed a new source of binocular information they claim is used to recover depth in stereoscopic displays. They argued that these displays lack conventional disparity and that the metrical depth experienced results from transparency rather than occlusion relations. Using a variety of modified versions of their stimuli, we show here that the conditions for transparency are not required to elicit the depth experienced in their stereograms. We demonstrate that quantitative and precise depth depended not on the presence of transparency but horizontal contours of the same contrast polarity. Depth was attenuated, particularly at larger target offsets, when horizontal contours had opposite contrast polarity for at least a portion of their length. We also show that a demonstration they used to control for the role of horizontal contours can be understood with previously identified mechanisms involved in the computations associated with stereoscopic occlusion. These results imply that the findings reported by Howard and Duke can be understood with mechanisms responsible for the computation of binocular disparity and stereoscopic occlusion.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

PubMed2003

Paired and unpaired features can be equally effective in human depth perception.

The horizontal separation of the eyes results in the projection of slightly different images in each eye that are used to recover depth. One source of depth information is disparity, the relative position of paired features in the two eyes. Another source of depth information comes from features that are present in only one eye's view. These unpaired features arise from occlusion and by definition cannot generate a conventional disparity signal. Here we compare the depth signals generated by paired and unpaired features using stimuli that differ only in whether a given feature (a vertical gap) is paired or unpaired. Ecologically, both stimuli are consistent with two panels separated in depth at the gap, but only the paired gap provides a conventional disparity signal. We found strikingly that depth thresholds for the two gap conditions were the same and that there was perfect cross-adaptation of perceived depth from the unpaired to paired condition, strongly suggesting a common mechanism.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

PubMed2003

Monocular gap stereopsis: manipulation of the outer edge disparity and the shape of the gap.

A binocular stimulus that arises when two black frontal plane surfaces located at different depths have a gap between them for one eye but not for the other eye is interesting since the gap is monocular--it has no matching contours in the other eye--and yet binocular processes resolve a depth step effortlessly (Vision Research, 39, 493). In two experiments we investigate the processes and constraints underlying this depth resolution by varying the width of the solid image (the one without the gap) and the shape of the gap. The results show that the processes underlying monocular gap stereopsis can handle a situation in which the images of two surfaces in depth are effectively overlapping for one eye's view with the other eye seeing between them and that binocular depth is seen even when there is no disparity present. We also show that under ecologically appropriate conditions, depth curvature and warping can result when the monocular gap has a curved or warped edge. Both these experiments imply that the visual system responds to the ambiguity of the stimulus by adopting a minimum slant constraint.

Depth Perception↗