scholarly journals Vertical size disparity induces enhanced neural responses in good stereo observers

2019 ◽  
Vol 164 ◽  
pp. 24-33
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Mitsudo ◽  
Naruhito Hironaga ◽  
Katsuya Ogata ◽  
Shozo Tobimatsu
1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (20) ◽  
pp. 2871-2878 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hirohiko Kaneko ◽  
Ian Howard

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 833
Author(s):  
Benjamin Backus ◽  
Baptiste Caziot
Keyword(s):  

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1503-1517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byron J Pierce ◽  
Ian P Howard

We examined (i) perceived slant of a textured surface about a vertical axis as a function of disparity magnitude for horizontal-size disparity, vertical-size disparity, and overall-size disparity; and (ii) interactions between patterns with various types and magnitudes of size disparity and superimposed or adjacent zero-disparity stimuli. Horizontal-size disparity produced slant which increased with increasing disparity, was enhanced by superimposed zero-disparity stimuli, and induced contrasting slant in superimposed or adjacent zero-disparity stimuli. Vertical-size disparity produced opposite slant (induced effect) which was reduced to near zero by a superimposed zero-disparity pattern and both patterns appeared as one surface. Adjacent vertical-size-disparity and zero-disparity patterns appeared as separate surfaces with a wide curved boundary. Overall-size disparity produced slant which was enhanced by a superimposed zero-disparity pattern and less so by a zero-disparity line, and induced more slant in a zero-disparity line than in a zero-disparity pattern. The results are discussed in terms of depth underestimation of isolated surfaces, depth enhancement, depth contrast, and the processing of deformation disparity.


Perception ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byron J Pierce ◽  
Ian P Howard ◽  
Catina Feresin

Depth interactions between a frontal test surface and an adjacent induction surface were measured as a function of the type of disparity in the induction surface and of the vertical/horizontal orientation of the boundary between the surfaces. The types of disparity were 4° horizontal-shear disparity, 4° vertical-shear disparity, and 4° rotation disparity; 4% horizontal-size disparity, 4% vertical-size disparity, and 4% overall-size disparity. Depth contrast in a frontal surface was produced by surfaces containing horizontal-size disparity but not by those containing horizontal-shear disparity. Vertical-shear and vertical-size disparities produced induced effects in both the induction and the test surface, which is here explained in terms of deformation-disparity processing. Effects of rotation disparity on the test surface can be accounted for in terms of cyclovergence, deformation disparity, and perhaps also depth contrast. The fact that horizontal-size disparity produced more depth contrast than horizontal-shear disparity is due to an anisotropy of disparity processing rather than the relative orientation of the surfaces. Ground surfaces appeared more slanted than ceiling surfaces. Surfaces containing horizontal disparities produced a sharp boundary with the test surface because horizontal disparities are processed locally. Surfaces with vertical disparities produced a gradual boundary with the test surface because vertical disparities are processed over a wider area.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (12) ◽  
pp. 74-74
Author(s):  
K. Fukuda ◽  
H. Kaneko ◽  
K. Matsumiya

Perception ◽  
10.1068/p7387 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Mitsudo ◽  
Ayumi Sakai ◽  
Hirohiko Kaneko

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 458-458
Author(s):  
K. Fukuda ◽  
K. Matsumiya ◽  
H. Kaneko

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke J. Chang ◽  
Peter J. Gianaros ◽  
Steve Manuck ◽  
Anjali Krishnan ◽  
Tor D. Wager
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document