PubMed · 11960849
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Scott B Stevenson. 2002. Visual processing in disparity vergence control.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb02864.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Small disparity stimuli applied to large random-dot patterns elicit machine-like vergence eye movements at short latency. We have examined the sensitivity of these eye movements to simulated orthogonal tropias in three normal subjects by recording (1) the effects of vertical disparities on the initial horizontal vergence responses elicited by 2 degrees crossed and uncrossed (horizontal) disparity stimuli, and (2) the effects of horizontal disparities on the initial vertical vergence responses elicited by 1.2 degrees left-hyper and 0.8 degrees right-hyper (vertical) disparity stimuli. Initial vergence responses were strongest when the orthogonal disparity was close to zero, and decreased to zero as the orthogonal disparity increased to 3 degrees -5 degrees, i.e., there was only a limited tolerance for orthogonal disparity. Tuning curves describing the dependence of the initial change in the vergence angle on the orthogonal disparity were well fit by a Gaussian function. An additional subject, who had an esotropia of approximately 10 degrees in our experimental setup, showed almost no horizontal vergence responses but did show vertical vergence responses to vertical disparity stimuli at short latency (albeit slightly longer than normal) despite the fact that her esotropia resulted in uncrossed disparities that would have totally disabled the vertical vergence mechanism of a normal subject, cf., anomalous retinal correspondence.
Jacopo Chimenti (c 1551-1640), an artist from Empoli, made two sketches of a young man holding a compass and a plumb line. When these were seen, mounted next to one another, by Alexander Crum Brown in 1859, he combined them by overconvergence and described the stereoscopic depth he saw. Brown's informal observation was conveyed to David Brewster, who suggested that the drawings were produced for a stereoscope, possibly made by Giovanni Battista della Porta. There followed a bitter debate about the supposed stereoscopic effects that could be seen when the pictures combined. Brewster's claims were finally dispelled when precise measurements were made of the drawings: some parts were stereoscopic and others were pseudoscopic. Brewster's attempts to wrest the invention of the stereoscope from Wheatstone were unsuccessful.
Six normal humans experienced yaw axis steps of velocity at 120 degrees /s in the dark. During the post-rotary period, subjects either had a null-task (do nothing); an ocular motor task (forced convergence: crossing the eyes); or a visual task (fixating a head-stationary target against a background of 10 degrees light/dark bars). Tasks started at 3 s post-rotation, and lasted either 2, 5, 10, or 15 s. Ocular motor and visual tasks were tested on different days. Five repetitions of each task duration were recorded for each subject. A mean VOR gain of 0.52 was observed, which did not vary with experimental conditions. Both convergence and fixation markedly suppressed nystagmus; in fact, the VORs obtained with the two different tasks are superficially similar in appearance. However, mean null-task time-constants were 9.4 s for convergence days, but 8.4 s for fixation days, and there was a small but significant reduction in overall null-task VOR amplitude on fixation days. Also, post-convergence slow-phase velocities were slightly enhanced, while post-fixation velocities were significantly reduced. The time-constant of velocity storage was found to be 10.1 s for convergence responses and 8.2 s for fixation responses. These differences can be understood in terms of modifications in central velocity storage during visual fixation which do not occur with convergence. The mean fixation data were analyzed in the context of a VOR model well-established for monkey data. With appropriate choice of parameters, this model accurately reproduces most features of the human data. An estimate for the human cupula time-constant of 3.3 s is obtained. Compared with the monkey, fixation suppression is greater and post-fixation velocity reduction less. Retinal slip alone accounts well for this; "velocity dumping" by an integrator shunt must be slight if present at all. The model correctly represents the post-fixation VOR for all durations of fixation.