Phantom surface captures stereopsis.

J Häkkinen; G Nyman

doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00231-5

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11163853

Phantom surface captures stereopsis.

J Häkkinen·G Nyman

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A phantom surface is a stereoscopic illusory area that can be seen in depth although there is no conventional stereoscopic cues [Liu, L., Stevenson, S.B., & Schor, C.M. (1994). Quantitative stereoscopic depth without binocular correspondence. Nature, 367, 66-69; Gillam, B. & Nakayama, K. (1999). Quantitative depth for a phantom surface can be based on cyclopean occlusion cues alone. Vision Research, 39, 109-112]. The phenomenon has been explained as an example of half-occlusion processing in which the visual system uses information about cyclopean occlusion structure of the visual world. We created stereo capture stereograms in which phantom surfaces changed the perceived depth of conventionally defined binocular textures. Because conventional stereoscopic matching is strongly affected by half-occlusion processing, we suggest that half-occlusion processing is an integral part of the early stereoscopic processing and solving of the correspondence problem.

Explore related subjects

Depth Perception Humans Optical Illusions Pattern Recognition, Visual Vision Disparity Vision, Monocular Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J Häkkinen, G Nyman. 2001-01-15. Phantom surface captures stereopsis.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00231-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

The interpolation of object and surface structure.

One of the main theoretical challenges of vision science is to explain how the visual system interpolates missing structure. Two forms of visual completion have been distinguished on the basis of the phenomenological states that they induce. Modal completion refers to the formation of visible surfaces and/or contours in image regions where these properties are not specified locally. Amodal completion refers to the perceived unity of objects that are partially obscured by occluding surfaces. Although these two forms of completion elicit very different phenomenological states, it has been argued that a common mechanism underlies modal and amodal boundary and surface interpolation (the "identity hypothesis"; Kellman & Shipley, 1991; Kellman, 2001). Here, we provide new data, demonstrations, and theoretical principles that challenge this view. We show that modal boundary and surface completion processes exhibit a strong dependence on the prevailing luminance relationships of a scene, whereas amodal completion processes do not. We also demonstrate that the shape of interpolated contours can change when a figure undergoes a transition from a modal to an amodal appearance, in direct contrast to the identity hypothesis. We argue that these and previous results demonstrate that modal and amodal completion do not result from a common interpolation mechanism.

Depth Perception↗

PubMed2002

A stochastic model of multistable visual perception.

Multistability in vision is an intriguing phenomenon that is currently not well understood. In this paper, we present a new, stochastic model for multistable visual perception. It is based on results of time series analysis of experimental data, yielding evidence for it being a linear, stochastic process. This is the outcome of testing for unstable periodic orbits and comparing the correlation dimension of the data to that of white noise. In the model, all degrees of freedom but one can be determined by general knowledge, thus resulting in a high degree of parsimony. The remaining parameter is used to model the individual characteristics that vary between subjects. Fitting simulations to the experimental data proves the parameter to be in a physiologically highly plausible range.

Depth Perception↗

PubMed2002

Is vertical disparity used to determine azimuth?

The azimuth of a stimulus relative to the head can be determined from an extra-retinal, eye-position signal plus an estimate of the retinal eccentricity of the image. Alternatively, azimuth could be determined from retinal-image information alone. Specifically, stimulus azimuth could be estimated from two derivatives of vertical disparity: vertical size ratio (which varies with azimuth), and the horizontal gradient of vertical size ratio (a measure of distance). Here we examine the determinants of perceived azimuth in viewing conditions that, theoretically, should favor the use of vertical disparity. We find no evidence that vertical disparity is used. Perceived azimuth was determined completely by felt eye position and the retinal eccentricity of the image.

Depth Perception↗