PubMed · 7169513
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Spiritus. 1982. [Examination for essential strabismus].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7169513/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
An old explanation of the moon illusion holds that various cues place the horizon moon at an effectively greater distance than the elevated moon. Although both moons have the same angular size, the horizon moon must be perceived as larger. More recent explanations hold that differences in accommodation or other factors cause the elevated moon to appear smaller. As a result of this illusory difference in size, the elevated moon appears to be more distant than the horizon moon. These two explanations, both based on the geometry of stereopsis, lead to two diametrically opposed hypotheses. That is, a depth interval at a long distance is associated with a smaller binocular disparity, whereas an equal depth interval at a smaller distance is associated with a larger disparity. We conducted experiments involving artificial moons and confirmed the hypothesis that the horizon moon is at a greater perceptual distance. Moreover, when a moon of constant angular size was moved closer it was also perceived as growing smaller, which is consistent with the older explanation. Although Emmert's law does not predict the size-distance relationship over long distances, we conclude that the horizon moon is perceived as larger because the perceptual system treats it as though it is much farther away. Finally, we observe that recent explanations substitute perceived size for angular size as a cue to distance. Thus, they imply that perceptions cause perceptions.
UNLABELLED: To study motor and sensory responses in vertical fusion at different angles of horizontal vergence in normal humans. METHODS: The study included 12 normal subjects. A cross (+) extending 3.4 degrees x3.2 degrees was presented dichoptically. Vertical disparity was introduced by changing the vertical position of the cross in front of one eye. The disparity was incremented by 0.08 degrees every 8 s. Distance viewing was tested with 1 degrees of convergence demand, near vision with 6-15 degrees convergence demand. Eye movements were recorded using three-axis search coils. RESULTS: Vertical fusion capability was larger at near vision than at distance in 9 of 12 subjects. For the entire group, total vertical fusion capability (motor plus sensory response) differed between distance (mean 1.68 degrees ) and near (mean 2.39 degrees ). The motor component differed significantly between distance (mean 1.42 degrees ) and near (mean 2.13 degrees ). No difference in the sensory component was seen between distance (mean 0.26 degrees ) and near (mean 0.27 degrees ). CONCLUSIONS: Vertical fusion capability increases with convergence. This increase is mainly due to an increase of the motor response.
In this work we report on a unique and ancient type of eye, in which the lower surface of the upper calcite lens units possessed an enigmatic central bulge making the dioptric apparatus similar to a bifocal lens. This eye belonged to the trilobite Dalmanitina socialis, which became extinct several hundred million years ago. As far as we know, image formation by bifocal lenses of this kind did/does not occur in any other ancient or modern animal visual system. We suggest that the function of these bifocal lenses may be to enable the trilobite to see simultaneously both very near (e.g. floating food particles and tiny preys) and far (e.g. sea floor, conspecifics, or approaching enemies) in the optical environment through the central and peripheral lens region, respectively. This was the only reasonable function we could find to explain the puzzling lens shape. We admit that it is not clear whether bifocality was necessary for the animal studied. We show that the misleading and accidental resemblance of an erroneous correcting lens surface (designed by René DesCartes in 1637 [DesCartes, R. (1637). Oeuvres de DesCartes. La Géometrie. Livre 2. pp. 134. J. Maire, Leyden] to the correcting interface in the compound Dalmanitina lens may be the reason why the earlier students of the Dalmanitina lens did not recognize its possible bifocality.