Impact of monocular vs. binocular contrast and blur on the range of functional stereopsis

被引:0
|
作者
Lew, Wei Hau [1 ,2 ]
Coates, Daniel R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Houston, Coll Optometry, Houston, TX USA
[2] Univ Houston, Coll Optometry, 4901 Calhoun Rd, Houston, TX 77004 USA
关键词
Stereopsis; Upper disparity limit; Range of disparity; Contrast; Blur; Stereo-matching algorithm; SPATIAL-FREQUENCY; DEPTH DISCRIMINATION; SENSITIVITY FUNCTION; D-MAX; DISPARITY; LUMINANCE; FUSION; ACUITY; PERCEPTION; STEREOACUITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.visres.2023.108309
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
Stereopsis depends on the smallest stereo threshold (lower limit) and the upper fusion limit. While studies have shown that the lower limit worsens with reduced contrast and blur, more strongly in monocular than in binocular conditions, the effect on the upper limit remains uncertain. Here, we assess the impact of contrast and blur on the range of the disparity sensitivity function (DSF) in a stereo letter recognition task. Subjects had to identify the stereo letters embedded in a random dot stereogram, and adaptive staircases were used to estimate the two limits. Five subjects performed the experiment at baseline contrast (100%), with different contrast (32% and 10%) and blur (+0.75DS and +1.25DS) in monocular and binocular degradation. We proposed three possible outcomes: 1) the range collapses in both directions 2) the lower limit threshold reduces, but the upper limit is not affected 3) the threshold for both limits increases and the range remains the same. We found that the curve for both limits was lowpass in shape, resulting in a smaller range at higher SFs. The results were similar to the first prediction, where the threshold for the lower limit increased while the upper limit was reduced at lower contrast and higher blur. The shrinkage of DSF is significant in monocular conditions. However, with blur, there was inter-subject variability. A simple cross-correlation stereo-matching algorithm was used to quantify the effect of contrast and blur. The results were consistent with the behavioral result that the range of DSF decreases with image degradation.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 44 条
  • [1] Binocular vs. monocular hue perception
    Opper, Jamie K.
    Volbrecht, Vicki J.
    VISION RESEARCH, 2017, 131 : 1 - 15
  • [3] Monocular vs. Binocular Measurement of Spatial Vision in Elders
    Schneck, Marilyn E.
    Haegerstom-Portnoy, Gunilla
    Lott, Lori A.
    Brabyn, John A.
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2010, 87 (08) : 526 - 531
  • [4] Perceptual Learning of Crowding: Binocular vs. Monocular Learning
    Boehm, Isabella
    Pieper, Julia
    Plank, Tina
    Malania, Maka
    Greenlee, Mark W.
    PERCEPTION, 2021, 50 (1_SUPPL) : 188 - 188
  • [5] Neural mechanisms underlying binocular fusion and stereopsis: Position vs. phase
    Anzai, A
    Ohzawa, I
    Freeman, RD
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1997, 94 (10) : 5438 - 5443
  • [6] Monocular vs. binocular surgical correction of non accomodative esotropia
    Castillo, JEM
    Campomanes-Equiarte, G
    Romero-Apis, D
    Acosta-Silva, M
    Zavaleta-Herrera, F
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2002, 43 : U41 - U41
  • [7] CONTRAST RESPONSE IN THE CATS STRIATE CORTEX - BINOCULAR VS MONOCULAR STIMULATION
    CAI, D
    ANZAI, A
    BEARSE, MA
    FREEMAN, RD
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 1991, 32 (04) : 908 - 908
  • [8] CONTRAST SENSITIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF MULTIFOCAL IOLS (MONOCULAR VS BINOCULAR)
    AZEVEDO, H
    GONCALVES, C
    CARDOSO, E
    LOBO, C
    MIRA, J
    LEITE, E
    VISION RESEARCH, 1995, 35 : P242 - P242
  • [9] CONTRAST CODING BY CELLS IN THE CATS STRIATE CORTEX - MONOCULAR VS BINOCULAR DETECTION
    ANZAI, A
    BEARSE, MA
    FREEMAN, RD
    CAI, DQ
    VISUAL NEUROSCIENCE, 1995, 12 (01) : 77 - 93
  • [10] CONTRAST DISCRIMINATION OF CELLS IN THE CATS VISUAL-CORTEX - MONOCULAR VS BINOCULAR FUNCTIONS
    ANZAI, A
    FREEMAN, RD
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 1992, 33 (04) : 1216 - 1216