PubMed · 9305834
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
I P Howard. 1997-09-18. Binocular vision. Seeing in reverse.. https://doi.org/10.1038/38400
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The aim of this comparative study was to gain subjective and objective data to determine for which operative tasks three-dimensional (3-D) vision systems are superior to two-dimensional (2-D) systems and to demonstrate any advantages or disadvantages of 3-D systems. METHODS: A model with five standardized tasks including sewing and knotting was developed to objectively measure performance times and to count technical faults. In our training center for minimally invasive surgery, surgeons involved in basic and advanced laparoscopic courses trained using both 2-D and 3-D vision systems. They subsequently completed analog scale questionnaires to record a subjective impression of comparative ease of operation tasks under 2-D and 3-D vision and to identify perceived deficiencies in the 3-D system. RESULTS: Compared to 2-D vision, the objective performance time was significantly shorter and significantly less mistakes were made using 3-D vision. All operative tasks were subjectively judged significantly easier under 3-D vision. CONCLUSIONS: Users with a normal capability for spatial perception can perform standard tasks more quickly and safely using 3-D vision, and a greater benefit is apparent for more complicated surgical maneuvers.
Stereoscopic segregation in depth was studied using two superimposed frontoparallel surfaces displayed in dynamic random dot stereograms. The two patterns were positioned symmetrically in front of and behind a binocular fixation point. They were either stationary, or they could move relative to each other. Sensitivity for segregation was established by adding gaussian distributed disparity noise to the disparities specifying the two planes, and finding the noise amplitude that gave threshold segregation performance. Observers easily segregate the two surfaces for disparity differences between approximately 6 and 30-40 arcmin. Motion contrast, which by itself provides no cue to perform the task, greatly improves sensitivity for segregation. Noise tolerance rises by a factor of two or more when the patterns move at different speeds, or in different (frontoparallel) directions. The effect increases with directional difference, but the optimal directional difference deviated from 180 deg. The optimal speed varies with disparity difference. Thus, motion and disparity must interact in order to resolve the two transparent planes.
The upper displacement limit for motion was compared with the upper disparity limit for stereopsis using two-frame random dot kinematograms or briefly presented stereograms. dmax (the disparity/displacement at which subjects make 20% errors in a forced-choice paradigm) was found to be very similar for motion and stereo at all dot densities, and to fall with increasing dot density (0.006% or two dots to 50%) according to a power law (exponent -0.2). If dmax is limited by the spacing of false targets, this pattern of results suggests that the spatial primitives in the input to the correspondence process may be derived from multiple spatial scales. A model using MIRAGE centroids provides a good fit to the data.