Binocular Eye Movements Are Adapted to the Natural Environment.

Humans and many animals make frequent saccades requiring coordinated movements of the eyes. When landing on the new fixation point, the eyes must converge accurately or double images will be perceived. We asked whether the visual system uses statistical regularities in the natural environment to aid eye alignment at the end of saccades. We measured the distribution of naturally occurring disparities in different parts of the visual field. The central tendency of the distributions was crossed (nearer than fixation) in the lower field and uncrossed (farther) in the upper field in male and female participants. It was uncrossed in the left and right fields. We also measured horizontal vergence after completion of vertical, horizontal, and oblique saccades. When the eyes first landed near the eccentric target, vergence was quite consistent with the natural-disparity distribution. For example, when making an upward saccade, the eyes diverged to be aligned with the most probable uncrossed disparity in that part of the visual field. Likewise, when making a downward saccade, the eyes converged to enable alignment with crossed disparity in that part of the field. Our results show that rapid binocular eye movements are adapted to the statistics of the 3D environment, minimizing the need for large corrective vergence movements at the end of saccades. The results are relevant to the debate about whether eye movements are derived from separate saccadic and vergence neural commands that control both eyes or from separate monocular commands that control the eyes independently.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT We show that the human visual system incorporates statistical regularities in the visual environment to enable efficient binocular eye movements. We define the oculomotor horopter: the surface of 3D positions to which the eyes initially move when stimulated by eccentric targets. The observed movements maximize the probability of accurate fixation as the eyes move from one position to another. This is the first study to show quantitatively that binocular eye movements conform to 3D scene statistics, thereby enabling efficient processing. The results provide greater insight into the neural mechanisms underlying the planning and execution of saccadic eye movements

Cortical Computation of Stereo Disparity

Our ability to see the world in depth is a major accomplishment of the brain. Previous models of how positionally disparate cues to the two eyes are binocularly matched limit possible matches by invoking uniqueness and continuity constraints. These approaches cannot explain data wherein uniqueness fails and changes in contrast alter depth percepts, or where surface discontinuities cause surfaces to be seen in depth although they are registered by only one eye (da Vinci stereopsis). A new stereopsis model explains these depth percepts by proposing how cortical complex cells binocularly filter their inputs and how monocular and binocular complex cells compete to determine the winning depth signals.Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N00014-92-J-4015); Air Force Office of Scientific Research (90-0175); Office of Naval Research (N00014-91-J-4100); James S. McDonnell Foundation (94-40); Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research (N00014-95-1-0409, N00014-95-1-0657

Spatial constraints of stereopsis in video displays

Recent development in video technology, such as the liquid crystal displays and shutters, have made it feasible to incorporate stereoscopic depth into the 3-D representations on 2-D displays. However, depth has already been vividly portrayed in video displays without stereopsis using the classical artists' depth cues described by Helmholtz (1866) and the dynamic depth cues described in detail by Ittleson (1952). Successful static depth cues include overlap, size, linear perspective, texture gradients, and shading. Effective dynamic cues include looming (Regan and Beverly, 1979) and motion parallax (Rogers and Graham, 1982). Stereoscopic depth is superior to the monocular distance cues under certain circumstances. It is most useful at portraying depth intervals as small as 5 to 10 arc secs. For this reason it is extremely useful in user-video interactions such as telepresence. Objects can be manipulated in 3-D space, for example, while a person who controls the operations views a virtual image of the manipulated object on a remote 2-D video display. Stereopsis also provides structure and form information in camouflaged surfaces such as tree foliage. Motion parallax also reveals form; however, without other monocular cues such as overlap, motion parallax can yield an ambiguous perception. For example, a turning sphere, portrayed as solid by parallax can appear to rotate either leftward or rightward. However, only one direction of rotation is perceived when stereo-depth is included. If the scene is static, then stereopsis is the principal cue for revealing the camouflaged surface structure. Finally, dynamic stereopsis provides information about the direction of motion in depth (Regan and Beverly, 1979). Clearly there are many spatial constraints, including spatial frequency content, retinal eccentricity, exposure duration, target spacing, and disparity gradient, which - when properly adjusted - can greatly enhance stereodepth in video displays

Cortical Dynamics of 3-D Surface Perception: Binocular and Half-Occluded Scenic Images

Previous models of stereopsis have concentrated on the task of binocularly matching left and right eye primitives uniquely. A disparity smoothness constraint is often invoked to limit the number of possible matches. These approaches neglect the fact that surface discontinuities are both abundant in natural everyday scenes, and provide a useful cue for scene segmentation. da Vinci stereopsis refers to the more general problem of dealing with surface discontinuities and their associated unmatched monocular regions within binocular scenes. This study develops a mathematical realization of a neural network theory of biological vision, called FACADE Theory, that shows how early cortical stereopsis processes are related to later cortical processes of 3-D surface representation. The mathematical model demonstrates through computer simulation how the visual cortex may generate 3-D boundary segmentations and use them to control filling-in of 3-D surface properties in response to visual scenes. Model mechanisms correctly match disparate binocular regions while filling-in monocular regions with the correct depth within a binocularly viewed scene. This achievement required introduction of a new multiscale binocular filter for stereo matching which clarifies how cortical complex cells match image contours of like contrast polarity, while pooling signals from opposite contrast polarities. Competitive interactions among filter cells suggest how false binocular matches and unmatched monocular cues, which contain eye-of-origin information, arc automatically handled across multiple spatial scales. This network also helps to explain data concerning context-sensitive binocular matching. Pooling of signals from even-symmetric and odd-symmctric simple cells at complex cells helps to eliminate spurious activity peaks in matchable signals. Later stages of cortical processing by the blob and interblob streams, including refined concepts of cooperative boundary grouping and reciprocal stream interactions between boundary and surface representations, arc modeled to provide a complete simulation of the da Vinci stereopsis percept.Office of Naval Research (N00014-95-I-0409, N00014-85-1-0657, N00014-92-J-4015, N00014-91-J-4100); Airforce Office of Scientific Research (90-0175); National Science Foundation (IRI-90-00530); The James S. McDonnell Foundation (94-40

Latitude and longitude vertical disparities

The literature on vertical disparity is complicated by the fact that several different definitions of the term “vertical disparity” are in common use, often without a clear statement about which is intended or a widespread appreciation of the properties of the different definitions. Here, we examine two definitions of retinal vertical disparity: elevation-latitude and elevation-longitude disparities. Near the fixation point, these definitions become equivalent, but in general, they have quite different dependences on object distance and binocular eye posture, which have not previously been spelt out. We present analytical approximations for each type of vertical disparity, valid for more general conditions than previous derivations in the literature: we do not restrict ourselves to objects near the fixation point or near the plane of regard, and we allow for non-zero torsion, cyclovergence, and vertical misalignments of the eyes. We use these expressions to derive estimates of the latitude and longitude vertical disparities expected at each point in the visual field, averaged over all natural viewing. Finally, we present analytical expressions showing how binocular eye position—gaze direction, convergence, torsion, cyclovergence, and vertical misalignment—can be derived from the vertical disparity field and its derivatives at the fovea

Depth perception not found in human observers for static or dynamic anti-correlated random dot stereograms

One of the greatest challenges in visual neuroscience is that of linking neural activity with perceptual experience. In the case of binocular depth perception, important insights have been achieved through comparing neural responses and the perception of depth, for carefully selected stimuli. One of the most important types of stimulus that has been used here is the anti-correlated random dot stereogram (ACRDS). In these stimuli, the contrast polarity of one half of a stereoscopic image is reversed. While neurons in cortical area V1 respond reliably to the binocular disparities in ACRDS, they do not create a sensation of depth. This discrepancy has been used to argue that depth perception must rely on neural activity elsewhere in the brain. Currently, the psychophysical results on which this argument rests are not clear-cut. While it is generally assumed that ACRDS do not support the perception of depth, some studies have reported that some people, some of the time, perceive depth in some types of these stimuli. Given the importance of these results for understanding the neural correlates of stereopsis, we studied depth perception in ACRDS using a large number of observers, in order to provide an unambiguous conclusion about the extent to which these stimuli support the perception of depth. We presented observers with random dot stereograms in which correlated dots were presented in a surrounding annulus and correlated or anti-correlated dots were presented in a central circular region. While observers could reliably report the depth of the central region for correlated stimuli, we found no evidence for depth perception in static or dynamic anti-correlated stimuli. Confidence ratings for stereoscopic perception were uniformly low for anti-correlated stimuli, but showed normal variation with disparity for correlated stimuli. These results establish that the inability of observers to perceive depth in ACRDS is a robust phenomenon

Measuring the Depth Perception Invoked by a Simple, Sustained, Polarity-Reversed Stereogram

The same-sign hypothesis suggests that only those edges in the two retinal images whose luminance gradients have the same sign can be stereoscopically fused to generate a perception of depth. If true, one would expect that the magnitude of the depth induced by a polarity-reversed stereogram (i.e. one where the corresponding figures in the two stereo half images have opposite luminance polarity) should be determined by the disparity of the samesign edges. Here we present a simple, sustained, polarity-reversed stereogram which we believe to be the first example of a polarity-reversed stereogram where this prediction is shown to be true. We conclude by discussing possible reasons why this prediction fails for other polarity-reversed stereograms.Defense Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research (N00014-95-1-0409); Office of Naval Research (N00014-95-1-0657); National Science Foundation (SBR-9905194)