4.3 Article

Stereoscopic depth constancy from a different direction

Journal

VISION RESEARCH
Volume 178, Issue -, Pages 77-85

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2020.10.003

Keywords

Stereopsis; Depth constancy; Horopter; Depth scaling; Depth perception; Distance

Funding

  1. NSERC Canada [RGPIN-2020-06061, RGPIN-2019-06694]
  2. Canada First Research Excellence Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This passage discusses how our visual system compensates for an object's egocentric location to calibrate stereoscopic depth, emphasizing the importance of concepts like the geometry of stereoscopic space and the horopter in maintaining depth constancy. Researchers need to consider both distance and direction when studying stereoscopic depth constancy.
To calibrate stereoscopic depth from disparity our visual system must compensate for an object's egocentric location. Ideally, the perceived three-dimensional shape and size of objects in visual space should be invariant with their location such that rigid objects have a consistent identity and shape. These percepts should be accurate enough to support both perceptual judgments and visually-guided interaction. This theoretical note reviews the relationship of stereoscopic depth constancy to the geometry of stereoscopic space and seemingly esoteric concepts like the horopter. We argue that to encompass the full scope of stereoscopic depth constancy, researchers need to consider not just distance but also direction, that is 3D egocentric location in space. Judgements of surface orientation need to take into account the shape of the horopter and the computation of metric depth (when tasks depend on it) must compensate for direction as well as distance to calibrate disparities. We show that the concept of the horopter underlies these considerations and that the relationship between depth constancy and the horopter should be more explicit in the literature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available