The role of monocularly visible regions in depth and surface perception

Vision Research

Volumn 49, Issue 22, 2009, Pages 2666-2685

  Harris, Julie M ^a   Wilcox, Laurie M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Binocular vision; da Vinci Stereopsis; Half occlusion; Monocular; Monocular regions; Stereopsis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; EYE DOMINANCE; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; MONOCULAR VISION; OPHTHALMOLOGY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA IMAGE; STEREOSCOPIC VISION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL SYSTEM;

DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SURFACE PROPERTIES; VISION DISPARITY; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISION, MONOCULAR;

EID: 70350344308     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.06.021     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Anderson B.L. The role of partial occlusion in stereopsis. Nature 367 (1994) 365-368
2. Anderson B.L., and Nakayama K. Towards a general theory of stereopsis: Binocular matching, occluding contours, and fusion. Psychology Review 101 (1994) 414-445
3. Anzai A., Ohzawa I., and Freeman R.D. Neural mechanisms for encoding binocular disparity: Receptive field position versus phase. Journal of Neurophysiology 82 (1999) 874-890
4. Assee A., and Qian N. Solving da Vinci stereopsis with depth-edge-selective V2 cells. Vision Research 47 (2007) 2585-2602
5. Barrand, A. G. (1979). An ecological approach to binocular perception: the neglected facts of occlusion. Cornell University PhD. Michigan: University Microfilms International.
6. Blake R., and Logothetis N.K. Visual competition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3 (2002) 13-21
7. Brooks K.R., and Gillam B.J. The swinging doors of perception: Stereomotion without binocular matching. Journal of Vision 6 7 (2006) 685-695 2
8. Brooks K.R., and Gillam B.J. Quantitative perceived depth from sequential monocular decamouflage. Vision Research 46 (2006) 605-613
9. Brooks K.R., and Gillam B.J. Stereomotion perception for a monocularly camouflaged stimulus. Journal of Vision 7 13 (2007) 1-14 1
10. Cao Y., and Grossberg S. A laminar cortical model of stereopsis and 3D surface perception: Closure and da Vinci stereopsis. Spatial Vision 18 (2005) 515-578
11. Changizi M.A., and Shimojo S. "X-ray vision" and the evolution of forward-facing eyes. Journal of Theoretical Biology 254 (2008) 756-767
12. Chen Y., and Qian N. A coarse-to-fine disparity energy model with both phase-shift and position-shift receptive field mechanisms. Neural Computation 16 (2004) 1545-1577
13. Cogan A.I., Kontsevich L.L., Lomakin A.J., Halpern D.L., and Blake R. Binocular disparity processing with opposite-contrast stimuli. Perception 24 (1995) 33-47
14. Collett T.S. Extrapolating and interpolating surfaces in depth. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B - Biological Sciences 224 (1985) 43-56
15. Cook M., and Gillam B. Depth of monocular elements in a binocular scene: The conditions for da Vinci stereopsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 30 (2004) 92-103
16. DeAngelis G.C., Ohzawa I., and Freeman R.D. Depth is encoded in the visual cortex by a specialized receptive field structure. Nature 352 (1991) 156-159
17. Egnal G., and Wildes R.P. Detecting binocular monocular regions: Empirical comparisons of five approaches. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24 (2002) 1127-1133
18. Ehrenstein W.H., and Gillam B.J. Early demonstrations of subjective contours, amodal completion, and depth from monocular regions: "Stereoscopic experiments with silhouettes" by Adolf von Szily (1921). Perception 27 (1998) 1407-1416
19. Emoto M., and Mitsuhashi T. Interocular suppression of a half-occluded region of stereoscopic images. Journal of the Optical Society of America A - Optics Image Science and Vision 15 (1998) 2257-2262
20. Erkelens C.J., Muijs A.J.M., and van Ee R. Binocular alignment in different depth planes. Vision Research 36 (1996) 2141-2147
21. Erkelens C.J., and van Ee R. The role of the cyclopean eye in vision: Sometimes inappropriate, always irrelevant. Vision Research 42 (2002) 1157-1163
22. Forte J., Peirce J.W., and Lennie P. Binocular integration of partially occluded surfaces. Vision Research 42 (2002) 1225-1235
23. Fukuda K., Wilcox L.M., Allison R.S., and Howard I. A reevaluation of the tolerance to vertical misalignment in stereopsis. Journal of Vision 9 2 (2009) 1-8 1
24. Gillam B. Matching needed for stereopsis. Nature 373 (1995) 202-203
25. Gillam B.J., and Blackburn S.G. Surface separation decreases stereoscopic slant but a monocular aperture increases it. Perception 27 (1998) 1267-1286
26. Gillam B., Blackburn S., and Cook M. Panum's limiting case: Double fusion, convergence error, or da Vinci stereopsis?. Perception 24 (1995) 333-346
27. Gillam B., Blackburn S., and Nakayama K. Stereopsis based on monocular gaps: Metrical encoding of depth and slant without matching contours. Vision Research 39 (1999) 493-502
28. Gillam B., and Borsting E. The role of monocular regions in stereoscopic displays. Perception 17 (1988) 603-608
29. Gillam B., Cook M., and Blackburn S. Monocular discs in the occlusion zones of binocular surfaces do not have quantitative depth - A comparison with Panum's limiting case. Perception 32 (2003) 1009-1019
30. Gillam B., and Grove P.M. Slant or occlusion: Global factors resolve stereoscopic ambiguity in sets of horizontal lines. Vision Research 44 (2004) 2359-2366
31. Gillam B., and Nakayama K. Quantitative depth for a phantom surface can be based on cyclopean occlusion cues alone. Vision Research 39 (1999) 109-112
32. Grossberg S., and Howe P.D.L. A laminar cortical model of stereopsis and three-dimensional surface perception. Vision Research 43 (2003) 801-829
33. Grossberg S., and McLoughlin N.P. Cortical dynamics of three-dimensional surface perception: Binocular and half-occluded scenic images. Neural Networks 10 (1997) 1583-1605
34. Grove P.M., Ben Sachtler W.L., and Gillam B.J. Amodal completion with background determines depth from monocular gap stereopsis. Vision Research 46 (2006) 3771-3774
35. Grove P.M., Brooks K.R., Anderson B.L., and Gillam B.J. Monocular transparency and unpaired stereopsis. Vision Research 46 (2006) 3041-3053
36. Grove P.M., Byrne J.M., and Gillam B.J. How configurations of binocular disparity determine whether stereoscopic slant or stereoscopic occlusion is seen. Perception 34 (2005) 1063-1094
37. Grove P.M., Gillam B., and Ono H. Content and context of monocular regions determine perceived depth in random dot, unpaired background and phantom stereograms. Vision Research 42 (2002) 1859-1870
38. Grove P.M., and Ono H. Ecologically invalid monocular texture leads to longer perceptual latencies in random-dot stereograms. Perception 28 (1999) 627-639
39. Hakkinen J., and Nyman G. Depth asymmetry in da Vinci stereopsis. Vision Research 36 (1996) 3815-3819
40. Hakkinen J., and Nyman G. Occlusion constraints and stereoscopic slant. Perception 26 (1997) 29-38
41. Hakkinen J., and Nyman G. Phantom surface captures stereopsis. Vision Research 41 2001 (2001) 187-199
42. Harris J.M., Nefs H.T., and Grafton C.J. Binocular vision and motion-in-depth. Spatial Vision 21 (2008) 531-547
43. Hayashi R., Maeda T., Shimojo S., and Tachi S. An integrative model of binocular vision: A stereo model utilizing interocularly unpaired points produces both depth and binocular rivalry. Vision Research 44 (2004) 2367-2380
44. Hess R.F., and Wilcox L.M. Linear and nonlinear filtering in stereopsis. Vision Research 34 (1994) 2431-2438
45. Howard I.P. Depth from binocular rivalry without spatial disparity. Perception 24 (1995) 67-74
46. Howard I.P. Seeing in depth (2002), I Porteous Press
47. Howard I.P., and Duke P.A. Monocular transparency generates quantitative depth. Vision Research 43 (2003) 2615-2621
48. Howard I.P., and Rogers B.J. Seeing in depth (2002), II Porteous Press
49. Jones R.K., and Lee D.N. Why two eyes are better than one: The two views of binocular vision. JEP:HPP 7 (1982) 30-40
50. Jones D.G., and Malik J. Computational framework for determining stereo correspondence from a set of linear spatial filters. Image and Vision Computing 10 (1992) 699-708
51. Julesz B. Foundations of cyclopean perception (1971), University of Chicago Press
52. Kaye M. Stereopsis without binocular correlation. Vision Research 18 (1978) 1013-1022
53. Kumar T. Stereopsis due to luminance differences in the two eyes. Vision Research 35 2 (1995) 255-262
54. Kuroki D., and Nakamizo S. Depth scaling in phantom and monocular gap stereopsis using absolute distance information. Vision Research 46 (2006) 4206-4216
55. Langer, M. S., (2008). Surface visibility probabilities in 3D cluttered scenes. In 10th European Conference on Computer Vision.
56. Lawson R.B., and Gulick W.L. Stereopsis and anomalous contour. Vision Research 7 (1967) 271-297
57. Lawson R.B., and Mount D.C. Minimum condition for stereopsis and anomalous contour. Science 158 (1967) 804-806
58. Liu L., Stevenson S.B., and Schor C.M. Quantitative stereoscopic depth without binocular correspondence. Nature 367 (1994) 66-69
59. Liu L., Stevenson S.B., and Schor C.M. Binocular matching of dissimilar features in phantom stereopsis. Vision Research 37 (1997) 633-644
60. Liu L., Stevenson S.B., and Schor C.M. Vergence eye movements illicited by stimuli without corresponding features. Perception 27 (1998) 7-20
61. Makino Y., and Yano M. Pictorial cues constrain depth in da Vinci stereopsis. Vision Research 46 (2006) 91-105
62. Malik J., Anderson B.L., and Charowhas C.E. Stereoscopic occlusion junctions. Nature Neuroscience 2 (1999) 840-843
63. Mapp A.P., and Ono H. Wondering about the wandering cyclopean eye. Vision Research 39 (1999) 2381-2386
64. Marr D., and Poggio T. Cooperative computation of stereo disparity. Science 194 (1976) 283-287
65. Marr D., and Poggio T. A computational theory of human stereo vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B - Biological Sciences 204 (1979) 301-328
66. Matsumiya K., Howard I.P., and Kaneko H. Perceived depth in the 'sieve effect' and exclusive binocular rivalry. Perception 36 (2007) 990-1002
67. McKee S.P., Bravo M.J., Smallman H.S., and Legge G.E. The uniqueness constraint and binocular masking. Perception 24 (1995) 49-65
68. McLoughlin N.P., and Grossberg S. Cortical computation of stereo disparity. Vision Research 38 (1998) 91-99
69. Mitchell D.E. Qualitative depth localization with diplopic images of dissimilar shape. Vision Research 9 (1969) 991-994
70. Mitsudo H., Nakamizo S., and Ono H. Greater depth seen with phantom stereopsis is coded at the early stages of visual processing. Vision Research 45 (2005) 1365-1374
71. Mitsudo H., Nakamizo S., and Ono H. A long-distance stereoscopic detector for partially occluding surfaces. Vision Research 46 (2006) 1180-1186
72. Nakayama K., and Shimojo S. da Vinci stereopsis: Depth and subjective occluding contours from unpaired image points. Vision Research 30 (1990) 1811-1825
73. Nefs H.T. Three-dimensional object shape from shading and contour disparities. Journal of Vision 8 11 (2008) 1-16 11
74. Ohzawa I., DeAngelis G.C., and Freeman R.D. Stereoscopic depth discrimination in the visual cortex: Neurons ideally suited as disparity detectors. Science 249 (1990) 1037-1041
75. Ono, H., Wade, N. J., Lillakas, L. (in press). Binocular vision: Defining the historical directions. Perception, doi:10.1068/p6130.
76. Ono H., Lillakas L., Grove P.M., and Suzuki M. Leonardo's constraint: Two opaque objects cannot be seen in the same direction. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 132 (2003) 253-265
77. Ono H., Mapp A.P., and Howard I.P. The cyclopean eye in vision: The new and old data continue to hit you right between the eyes. Vision Research 42 (2002) 1307-1324
78. Ono H., Shimono K., and Shibuta K. Occlusion as a depth cue in the Wheatstone-Panum limiting case. Perception & Psychophysics 51 (1992) 3-13
79. Ono H., Wade N.J., and Lillakas L. The pursuit of Leonardo's constraint. Perception 31 (2002) 83-102
80. Ooi T.L., and He Z.J. Binocular rivalry and surface boundary processing. Perception 35 (2006) 581-603
81. Pianta M.J., and Gillam B.J. Paired and unpaired features can be equally effective in human depth perception. Vision Research 43 (2003) 1-6
82. Pianta M.J., and Gillam B.J. Monocular gap stereopsis: Manipulation of the outer edge disparity and the shape of the gap. Vision Research 43 (2003) 1937-1950
83. Prince S.J.D., Pointon A.D., Cumming B.G., and Parker A.J. Quantitative analysis of the responses of V1 neurons to horizontal disparity in dynamic random-dot stereograms. Journal of Neurophysiology 87 (2002) 191-208
84. Qian N. Computing stereo disparity and motion with known binocular cell properties. Neural Computation 6 (1994) 390-404
85. Richter. Selections from the notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci (1977), Oxford University Press
86. Rogers B.J., and Graham M.E. Anisotropies in the perception of three-dimensional surfaces. Science 221 (1983) 1409-1411
87. Sachtler W.L., and Gillam B. The stereoscopic sliver a comparison of duration thresholds for fully stereoscopic and unmatched versions. Perception 36 (2007) 135-144
88. Saye A., and Frisby J.P. Role of monocularly conspicuous features in facilitating stereopsis from random-dot stereograms. Perception 4 (1975) 159-171
89. Shimojo S., and Nakayama K. Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry. Vision Research 30 (1990) 69-80
90. Shimojo S., and Nakayama K. Interocularly unpaired zones escape local binocular matching. Vision Research 34 (1994) 1875-1881
91. Shimojo S., Silverman G.H., and Nakayama K. An occlusion-related mechanism of depth perception based on motion and interocular sequence. Nature 333 (1988) 265-268
92. Strong D.S. Leonardo on the eye. An English translation and critical commentary of MS. D in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, with Studies on Leonardo's methodology and theories on optics (1979), Garland Publishing, New York
93. Tsai J.J., and Victor J.D. Neither occlusion constraint nor binocular disparity accounts for the perceived depth in the 'sieve effect'. Vision Research 40 (2000) 2265-2276
94. Tsai J.J., and Victor J.D. Binocular depth perception from unpaired image points need not depend on scene organization. Vision Research 45 (2005) 527-532
95. Tsao D.Y., Conway B.R., and Livingstone M.S. Receptive fields of disparity-tuned simple cells in macaque V1. Neuron 38 (2003) 103-114
96. van Bogaerts E.A., Ooi T.L., and He Z.J. The monocular-boundary-contour mechanism in binocular surface representation and suppression. Perception 37 (2008) 1197-1215
97. van Ee R., Anderson B.L., and Farid H. Occlusion junctions do not improve stereoacuity. Spatial Vision 15 (2001) 45-59
98. von der Heydt R., Zhou H., and Friedman H.S. Representation of stereoscopic edges in monkey visual cortex. Vision Research 40 (2000) 1955-1967
99. Wade N.J., Ono H., and Lillakas L. Leonardo da Vinci's struggles with representations of reality. Leonardo 34 (2001) 231-235
100. Watanabe O., and Fukushima K. Stereo algorithm that extracts a depth cue from interocularly unpaired points. Neural Networks 12 (1999) 569-578
101. Wheatstone C. Contributions to the physiology of vision. Part the first: On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved phenomena of binocular vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B - Biological Sciences 40 (1838) 371-394
102. Wilcox L.M., and Allison R. Review of 2nd order stereopsis. Vision Research (2009)
103. Wilcox L.M., Harris J.M., and McKee S.P. The role of binocular stereopsis in monoptic depth perception. Vision Research 47 (2007) 2367-2377
104. Wilcox L.M., and Hess R.F. D-max for stereopsis depends on size, not spatial-frequency content. Vision Research 35 (1995) 1061-1069
105. Wilcox L.M., and Hess R.F. Is the site of non-linear filtering in stereopsis before or after binocular combination?. Vision Research 36 (1996) 391-399
106. Wilcox L.M., and Lakra D.C. Depth from binocular monocular regions in stereoscopic images of natural scenes. Perception 36 (2007) 830-839
107. Zitnick C.L., and Kanade T. A cooperative algorithm for stereo matching and occlusion detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22 (2000) 675-684