Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2012
Parallactic movement beats binocularity in the presence of external visual noise.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Voges Nicole, Bach Michael, Kommerell Guntram
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Binocular vision provides a considerable advantage over monocular vision when stationary particles partly obstruct the view. Such situations occur in real life, e.g., when drivers are trying to identify objects through a windshield dotted with snowflakes. In the process of driving, any bumpiness of the road will bring about a parallactic movement of particles on the windshield with respect to the visual object. We investigated whether this parallactic movement diminishes the advantage of binocular over monocular vision.
METHODS: Using computer graphics, we simulated a driving situation with snowflakes represented by noise particles on the windshield. Ten observers tried to identify a Landolt ring (8 possible orintations, gap always 2.5 arcmin) presented for 2 s at a viewing distance of 2 m. The partly obstructing noise particles, either stationary or moving vertically at three sinusoidal velocities, were presented at a viewing distance of 0.8 m, corresponding to a stereodisparity well beyond Panum's fusional area. We compared the percentage of correct responses and the reaction time between binocular and monocular vision.
RESULTS: When the 'snowflakes' were stationary, binocular vision yielded more correct responses than monocular vision (52.2 ± 1.8% vs 39.7 ± 1.7%). When the 'snowflakes' were moving, the task was much easier and the binocular advantage less pronounced (95.8 ± 1.4% vs 85.3 ± 5.2%). The reaction time with stationary noise was 1.25 s for binocular and 1.31 s for monocular vision. With moving noise, averaged over all three velocities, the reaction time was 1.23 s for binocular and 1.36 s for monocular vision.
CONCLUSION: Parallactic movement of partly obstructing particles reduces the advantage of binocular over monocular vision to practically irrelevant values.
METHODS: Using computer graphics, we simulated a driving situation with snowflakes represented by noise particles on the windshield. Ten observers tried to identify a Landolt ring (8 possible orintations, gap always 2.5 arcmin) presented for 2 s at a viewing distance of 2 m. The partly obstructing noise particles, either stationary or moving vertically at three sinusoidal velocities, were presented at a viewing distance of 0.8 m, corresponding to a stereodisparity well beyond Panum's fusional area. We compared the percentage of correct responses and the reaction time between binocular and monocular vision.
RESULTS: When the 'snowflakes' were stationary, binocular vision yielded more correct responses than monocular vision (52.2 ± 1.8% vs 39.7 ± 1.7%). When the 'snowflakes' were moving, the task was much easier and the binocular advantage less pronounced (95.8 ± 1.4% vs 85.3 ± 5.2%). The reaction time with stationary noise was 1.25 s for binocular and 1.31 s for monocular vision. With moving noise, averaged over all three velocities, the reaction time was 1.23 s for binocular and 1.36 s for monocular vision.
CONCLUSION: Parallactic movement of partly obstructing particles reduces the advantage of binocular over monocular vision to practically irrelevant values.