Monocular occlusions determine the perceived shape and depth of occluding surfaces

Journal of Vision

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2010, Pages

  Tsirlin, Inna ^a   Wilcox, Laurie M ^a   Allison, Robert S ^a  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Binocular half occlusions; Da Vinci stereopsis; Depth; Illusory contours; Monocular occlusions; Qualitative depth perception; Quantitative depth perception; Stereopsis; Three dimensional surfaces

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BINOCULAR VISION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; MONOCULAR VISION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY;

CUES; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISION DISPARITY; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISION, MONOCULAR;

EID: 79952677717     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/10.6.11     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Anderson, B. L. (1994). The role of partial occlusion in stereopsis. Nature, 367, 365-368.
2. Anderson, B. L., & Nakayama, K. (1994). Toward a general theory of stereopsis: Binocular matching, occluding contours, and fusion. Psychological Review, 101, 414-445.
3. Cook, M., & Gillam, B. (2004). Depth of monocular elements in a binocular scene: The conditions for da Vinci stereopsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 92-103.
4. Ehrenstein, W. H., & Gillam, B. (1998). Early demonstrations of subjective contours, amodal completion, and depth from half-occlusions: "Stereoscopic experiments with silhouettes" by Adolf von Szily (1921). Perception, 27, 1407-1416.
5. Gillam, B. (1995). Matching needed for stereopsis. Nature, 373, 202.
6. Gillam, B., Blackburn, S., & Nakayama, K. (1999). Stereopsis based on monocular gaps: Metrical encoding of depth and slant without matching contours. Vision Research, 39, 493-502.
7. Gillam, B., & Borsting, E. (1988). The role of monocular regions in stereoscopic displays. Perception, 17, 603-608.
8. Gillam, B., Cook, M., & Blackburn, S. (2003). Monocular discs in the occlusion zones of binocular surfaces do not have quantitative depth: A comparison with Panum's limiting case. Perception, 32, 1009-1019.
9. Gillam, B., & Nakayama, K. (1999). Quantitative depth for a phantom surface can be based on cyclopean occlusion cues alone. Vision Research, 39, 109-112.
10. Grove, P. M., Gillam, B., & Ono, H. (2002). Content and context ofmonocular regions determine perceived depth in random dot, unpaired background and phantom stereograms. Vision Research, 42, 1859-1870.
11. Grove, P. M., & Ono, H. (1999). Ecologically invalid monocular texture leads to longer perceptual latencies in random-dot stereograms. Perception, 28, 627-639.
12. Hakkinen, J., & Nyman, G. (1996). Depth asymmetry in daVinci stereopsis. Vision Research, 36, 3815-3819.
13. Hakkinen, J., & Nyman, G. (2001). Phantom surface captures stereopsis. Vision Research, 41, 187-199.
14. Harris, J. M., & Wilcox, L. M. (2009). The role of monocularly visible regions in depth and surface perception. Vision Research, 49, 2666-2685.
15. Liu, L., Stevenson, S. B., & Schor, C. M. (1994). Quantitative stereoscopic depth without binocular correspondence. Nature, 367, 66-68.
16. Liu, L., Stevenson, S. B., & Schor, C. M. (1995). Matching needed for stereopsis. Nature, 373, 203.
17. Liu, L., Stevenson, S. B., & Schor, C. M. (1997). Binocular matching of dissimilar features in phantom stereopsis. Vision Research, 37, 633-644.
18. Nakayama, K., & Shimojo, S. (1990). Da Vinci stereopsis: Depth and subjective occluding contours from unpaired image points. Vision Research, 30, 1811-1825.
19. Pianta, M., & Gillam, B. (2003a). Monocular gap stereopsis: Manipulation of the outer edge disparity and the shape of the gap. Vision Research, 43, 1937-1950.
20. Pianta, M., & Gillam, B. (2003b). Paired and unpaired features can be equally effective in human depth perception. Vision Research, 43, 1-6.
21. Shimojo, S., & Nakayama, K. (1990). Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 30, 69-80.
22. Wilcox, L. M., & Lakra, D. C. (2007). Depth from binocular half-occlusions in stereoscopic images of natural scenes. Perception, 36, 830-839.