Stereo-anomaly is Found More Frequently in Tasks That Require Discrimination Between Depths

Overview

Journal iScience

Publisher Cell Press

Date 2024 May 30

PMID 38812554

Authors

Alex S Baldwin

Seung Hyun Min

Sara Alarcon Carrillo

Zili Wang

Ziyun Cheng

Jiawei Zhou

Robert F Hess

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Within the population of humans with otherwise normal vision, there exists some proportion whose ability to perceive depth from binocular disparity is poor or absent. The prevalence of this "stereo-anomaly" has been reported to be as small as 2%, or as great as 30%. We set out to investigate this discrepancy. We used a digital tool to measure stereoacuity in tasks requiring either the detection of disparity or the discrimination of the direction of disparity. In a cohort of 228 participants, we found that 98% were able to consistently perform the detection task. Of these, only 69% consistently performed the discrimination task. The 31% of participants who had difficulty with the discrimination task could further be divided into 17% who were consistently unable to perform the task and 14% who showed limited ability. This suggests that identification of the direction of disparity requires further processing beyond merely detecting its presence.

References

Birch E, Williams C, Drover J, Fu V, Cheng C, Northstone K . Randot Preschool Stereoacuity Test: normative data and validity. J AAPOS. 2007; 12(1):23-6. PMC: 2577836. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2007.06.003. View

Zhaoping L . Contrast-reversed binocular dot-pairs in random-dot stereograms for depth perception in central visual field: Probing the dynamics of feedforward-feedback processes in visual inference. Vision Res. 2021; 186:124-139. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2021.03.005. View

Skog E, Meese T, Sargent I, Ormerod A, Schofield A . Classification images for aerial images capture visual expertise for binocular disparity and a prior for lighting from above. J Vis. 2024; 24(4):11. PMC: 11019598. DOI: 10.1167/jov.24.4.11. View

Chopin A, Chan S, Guellai B, Bavelier D, Levi D . Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):5789. PMC: 6453951. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42149-2. View

Wilcox L, Hartle B, Solski A, MacKenzie K, Giaschi D . Disparity configuration influences depth discrimination in naïve adults, but not in children. Vision Res. 2017; 131:106-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2016.12.010. View

Harris C, Millman K, van der Walt S, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D . Array programming with NumPy. Nature. 2020; 585(7825):357-362. PMC: 7759461. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2. View

Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant T, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D . SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020; 17(3):261-272. PMC: 7056644. DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2. View

Webber A, Wood J, Thompson B, Birch E . From suppression to stereoacuity: a composite binocular function score for clinical research. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2019; 39(1):53-62. PMC: 6628341. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12599. View

Richards W . Anomalous stereoscopic depth perception. J Opt Soc Am. 1971; 61(3):410-4. DOI: 10.1364/josa.61.000410. View

10.

Alarcon Carrillo S, Baldwin A, Hess R . Factors limiting sensitivity to binocular disparity in human vision: Evidence from a noise-masking approach. J Vis. 2020; 20(3):9. PMC: 7405759. DOI: 10.1167/jov.20.3.9. View

11.

Prins N, Kingdom F . Applying the Model-Comparison Approach to Test Specific Research Hypotheses in Psychophysical Research Using the Palamedes Toolbox. Front Psychol. 2018; 9:1250. PMC: 6064978. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01250. View

12.

Zhaoping L, Ackermann J . Reversed Depth in Anticorrelated Random-Dot Stereograms and the Central-Peripheral Difference in Visual Inference. Perception. 2018; :301006618758571. DOI: 10.1177/0301006618758571. View

13.

Webber A, Schmid K, Baldwin A, Hess R . Suppression Rather Than Visual Acuity Loss Limits Stereoacuity in Amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020; 61(6):50. PMC: 7419721. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.61.6.50. View

14.

Bohr I, Read J . Stereoacuity with Frisby and revised FD2 stereo tests. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12):e82999. PMC: 3861460. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082999. View

15.

Serrano-Pedraza I, Vancleef K, Read J . Avoiding monocular artifacts in clinical stereotests presented on column-interleaved digital stereoscopic displays. J Vis. 2016; 16(14):13. PMC: 5114011. DOI: 10.1167/16.14.13. View

16.

Zaroff C, Knutelska M, Frumkes T . Variation in stereoacuity: normative description, fixation disparity, and the roles of aging and gender. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44(2):891-900. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.02-0361. View

17.

Atchison D, Lee J, Lu J, Webber A, Hess R, Baldwin A . Effects of simulated anisometropia and aniseikonia on stereopsis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2020; 40(3):323-332. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12680. View

18.

Landers D, Cormack L . Asymmetries and errors in perception of depth from disparity suggest a multicomponent model of disparity processing. Percept Psychophys. 1997; 59(2):219-31. DOI: 10.3758/bf03211890. View

19.

Cumming B, Parker A . Responses of primary visual cortical neurons to binocular disparity without depth perception. Nature. 1997; 389(6648):280-3. DOI: 10.1038/38487. View

20.

Alarcon Carrillo S, Hess R, Mao Y, Zhou J, Baldwin A . Amblyopic stereo vision is efficient but noisy. Vision Res. 2023; 210:108267. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2023.108267. View