Dmax for Stereoscopic Depth Perception with Simulated Monovision Correction
In: Seeing and PerceivingSearch for other papers by Jin Qian in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Samuel A. Adeseye in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Scott B. Stevenson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Saumil S. Patel in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Harold E. Bedell in
Current site
Google Scholar
Purpose: Persons who wear monovision correction typically receive a clear image in one eye and a blurred image in the other eye. Although monovision is known to elevate the minimum stereoscopic threshold (Dmin), it is uncertain how it influences the largest binocular disparity for which the direction of depth can reliably be perceived (Dmax). In this study, we compared Dmax for stereo when one eye’s image is blurred to Dmax when both eyes’ images are either clear or blurred.
Methods: The stimulus was a pair of vertically oriented, random-line patterns. To simulate monovision correction with +1.5 or +2.5 D defocus, the images of the line patterns presented to one eye were spatially low-pass filtered while the patterns presented to the other eye remained unfiltered.
Results: Compared to binocular viewing without blur, Dmin is elevated substantially more in the presence of monocular than binocular simulated blur. Dmax is reduced in the presence of simulated monocular blur by between 13 and 44%, compared to when the images in both eyes are clear. In contrast, when the targets presented to both eyes are blurred equally, Dmax either is unchanged or increases slightly, compared to the values measured with no blur.
Conclusion: In conjunction with the elevation of Dmin, the reduction of Dmax with monocular blur indicates that the range of useful stereoscopic depth perception is likely to be compressed in patients who wear monovision corrections.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Akutsu H., Bedell H. E., Patel S. S. (2000). Recognition thresholds for letters with simulated dioptric blur, Optom. Vis. Sci. 77, 524–530.
-
Brainard D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox, Spat. Vis. 10, 433–436.
-
Chen S. I., Hove M., McCloskey C. L., Kaye S. B. (2005). The effect of monocularly and binocularly induced astigmatic blur on depth discrimination is orientation dependent, Optom. Vis. Sci. 82, 101–113.
-
Cleary R., Braddick O. J. (1990). Masking of low frequency information in short-range apparent motion, Vision Res. 30, 317–327.
-
Cormack L. K., Stevenson S. B., Landers D. D. (1997). Interactions of spatial frequency and unequal monocular contrasts in stereopsis, Perception 26, 1121–1136.
-
Eagle R. A., Rogers B. J. (1996). Motion detection is limited by element density not spatial frequency, Vision Res. 36, 545–558.
-
Glennerster A. (1998). Dmax for stereopsis and motion in random dot displays, Vision Res. 38, 925–935.
-
Godts D., Tassignon M. J., Gobin L. (2004). Binocular vision impairment after refractive surgery, J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 30, 101–109.
-
Hess R. F., Liu C. H., Wang Y. Z. (2003). Differential binocular input and local stereopsis, Vision Res. 43, 2303–2313.
-
Jiménez J. R., Castro J. J., Hita E., Anera R. G. (2008). Upper disparity limit after LASIK, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 25, 1227–1231.
-
Lebow K. A., Goldberg J. B. (1975). Characteristic of binocular vision found for presbyopic patients wearing single vision contact lenses, J. Amer. Optom. Assoc. 46, 1116–1123.
-
Legge G. E., Gu Y. (1989). Stereopsis and contrast, Vision Res. 29, 989–1004.
-
Lit A. (1968). Presentation of experimental data, J. Amer. Optom. Assoc. 39, 1098–1099.
-
McGill E., Erickson P. (1988). Stereopsis in presbyopes wearing monovision and simultaneous vision bifocal contact lenses, Amer. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 65, 619–626.
-
Nakayama K., Shimojo S. (1990). da Vinci stereopsis: depth and subjective occluding contours from unpaired image points, Vision Res. 30, 1811–1825.
-
Patel S. S., Bedell H. E., Sampat P. (2006). Pooling signals from vertically and non-vertically orientation-tuned disparity mechanisms in human stereopsis, Vision Res. 46, 1–13.
-
Patel S. S., Ukwade M. T., Bedell H. E., Sampath V. (2003). Near stereothresholds measured with random-dot stereograms using phase disparities, Optometry 74, 453–462.
-
Prince S. J., Cumming B. G., Parker A. J. (2002). Range and mechanism of encoding of horizontal disparity in macaque V1, J. Neurophysiol. 87, 209–221.
-
Schmidt P. P. (1994). Sensitivity of random dot stereoacuity and Snellen acuity to optical blur, Optom. Vis. Sci. 71, 466–471.
-
Schor C. M., Flom M. C. (1969). The relative value of stereopsis as a function of viewing distance, Amer. J. Optom. Arch. Amer. Acad. Optom. 46, 805–809.
-
Schor C., Heckman T. (1989). Interocular differences in contrast and spatial frequency: effects on stereopsis and fusion, Vision Res. 29, 837–847.
-
Stevenson S. B., Cormack L. K. (2000). A contrast paradox in stereopsis, motion and vernier acuity, Vision Res. 40, 2881–2884.
-
Stevenson S. B., Schor C. M. (1997). Human stereo matching is not restricted to epipolar lines, Vision Res. 37, 2717–2723.
-
Westheimer G., McKee S. P. (1980). Stereoscopic acuity with defocussed and spatially filtered retinal images, J. Optic. Soc. Amer. 70, 772–778.
-
Wood I. C. (1983). Stereopsis with spatially-degraded images, Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 3, 337–340.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 354 | 48 | 3 |
| Full Text Views | 58 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 32 | 3 | 0 |
Dmax for Stereoscopic Depth Perception with Simulated Monovision Correction
In: Seeing and PerceivingSearch for other papers by Jin Qian in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Samuel A. Adeseye in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Scott B. Stevenson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Saumil S. Patel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Harold E. Bedell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose: Persons who wear monovision correction typically receive a clear image in one eye and a blurred image in the other eye. Although monovision is known to elevate the minimum stereoscopic threshold (Dmin), it is uncertain how it influences the largest binocular disparity for which the direction of depth can reliably be perceived (Dmax). In this study, we compared Dmax for stereo when one eye’s image is blurred to Dmax when both eyes’ images are either clear or blurred.
Methods: The stimulus was a pair of vertically oriented, random-line patterns. To simulate monovision correction with +1.5 or +2.5 D defocus, the images of the line patterns presented to one eye were spatially low-pass filtered while the patterns presented to the other eye remained unfiltered.
Results: Compared to binocular viewing without blur, Dmin is elevated substantially more in the presence of monocular than binocular simulated blur. Dmax is reduced in the presence of simulated monocular blur by between 13 and 44%, compared to when the images in both eyes are clear. In contrast, when the targets presented to both eyes are blurred equally, Dmax either is unchanged or increases slightly, compared to the values measured with no blur.
Conclusion: In conjunction with the elevation of Dmin, the reduction of Dmax with monocular blur indicates that the range of useful stereoscopic depth perception is likely to be compressed in patients who wear monovision corrections.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 354 | 48 | 3 |
| Full Text Views | 58 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 32 | 3 | 0 |