Abnormal Depth Perception from Motion Parallax in Amblyopic Observers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Vision Research 39 (1999) 1407–1413 Abnormal depth perception from motion parallax in amblyopic observers Angela M. Thompson, Mark Nawrot * Department of Psychology, North Dakota State Uni6ersity, Fargo, ND 58105, USA Received 4 February 1998; received in revised form 4 August 1998 Abstract Many similarities exist between the perception of depth from binocular stereopsis and that from motion parallax. Moreover, Rogers (1984, cited in, Howard, I. P., & Rogers, B. J. (1995). Binocular 6ision and stereopsis. Oxford Claridon, New York.) suggests a relationship between an observer’s ability to use disparity information and motion parallax information in a depth perception task. To more closely investigate this relationship, depth perception was studied in normal observers and amblyopic observers with poor stereo vision. As expected, amblyopic observers performed much worse than normal observers on depth discriminations requiring use of binocular disparity. However, amblyopic observers also performed much worse than normal observers on depth discriminations based on motion parallax. This result provides supporting evidence for a psychoanatomical link between the perception of depth from motion and the perception of depth from binocular disparity. © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Motion parallax; Depth perception; Amblyopia 1. Introduction parallax is an ineffectual cue to depth (Epstein & Park, 1964; Gogel, 1977). However, using random-dot stim- Depth perception is of undeniable importance for uli, Rogers and Graham (1979) have convincingly quick and effortless locomotion through a cluttered and demonstrated that observers can accurately perceive hazard-filled environment. To this end, the visual sys- depth from motion parallax. Unfortunately, neural tem uses numerous sources of information for depth mechanisms for depth from motion parallax are less perception. Of all possible depth cues, binocular well understood than those used for binocular stereop- stereopsis and motion are perhaps the two most impor- sis. For example, Nawrot and Blake (1991b) have sug- tant. Both cues are well known to generate a vivid sense gested that depth from motion is processed in a of depth (Helmholtz, 1909) through the use of a spatial network of disparity and motion selective units, al- or temporal optical parallax cue (Gibson, 1950). though this model fails to account for the unambiguous Of these depth cues, most is known about binocular depth perceived with motion parallax. stereopsis (Julesz, 1971; Howard & Rogers, 1995). Despite the inherent stimulus differences between Binocular stereopsis relies on the interocular differences binocular stereopsis and motion parallax, there is much or disparities in the position of image contours falling evidence for close processing ties between binocular on the retinae. The neural mechanisms by which this stereopsis and motion parallax. Rogers and Graham binocular retinal disparity is encoded by the visual (1982, 1983) have found that the two cues provide very system have received a great deal of study (Ohzawa, similar depth sensitivity and that this depth sensitivity DeAngelis & Freeman, 1996, 1997). In contrast, much shows similar variations with orientation for both less is known about the processing of motion parallax binocular stereopsis and motion parallax. Additionally, information and some have even suggested that motion Graham and Rogers (1982), Rogers and Graham (1984) have shown interactions between binocular * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 701 2318032; fax: +1 701 stereopsis and motion parallax in the form of percep- 2318426; e-mail: [email protected]. tual aftereffects. More generally, links between depth 0042-6989/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0042-6989(98)00235-1 1408 A.M. Thompson, M. Nawrot / Vision Research 39 (1999) 1407–1413 from stereopsis and depth from motion are numerous. and motion abilities of two groups of observers. Tittle and Braunstein (1993) have shown additive ef- Whereas Rogers (1984) studied a group of normal fects of stereopsis and motion in depth perception while observers whose stereo abilities lay along a continuum, Rogers and Collett (1989), Bradshaw and Rogers we compared the performance of a group of normal (1996) and Nawrot and Blake (1991a,b, 1993a,b) have observers to the performance of a group of strabismic demonstrated numerous interactions between motion amblyopes with poor stereo vision. If there is a com- and binocular stereopsis in the perception of depth. mon processing link for binocular stereopsis and mo- Together these studies present compelling evidence that tion parallax, the group of observers with poor stereo binocular stereopsis and motion parallax share a com- vision should perform poorly on a motion parallax mon neural process for depth perception. task. However, if the compensation hypothesis is cor- Perhaps the most interesting evidence for a link rect, the group with poor stereo vision will perform between binocular stereopsis and depth from motion normally on the motion parallax task. comes from studies comparing observers’ relative abili- ties for using these two cues. Richards and Leiberman (1985) found a significant relationship between observ- 2. Methods ers’ perception of depth from binocular stereopsis and their perception of depth from motion. In particular, 2.1. Participants these investigators found that observers’ depth discrimi- nation abilities in convergent disparities were signifi- Ten strabismic amblyopic observers (two observers cantly correlated with each observer’s perception of were also anisometric) with poor stereo vision were depth from motion. Although the precise implications identified and recruited through a subject pool screen- are unclear (Bradshaw, Frisby & Mayhew, 1987), these ing questionaire given to over 1200 introductory psy- results again suggest an important link between an chology students. Observers answering strongly observer’s perception of depth from stereo and motion. affirmatively to questions about amblyopia, stereo vi- Along these same lines, Rogers (1984) (reported in sion anomaly, and a willingness to participate in this Howard and Rogers (1995)) found a relationship be- research for course credit were approached to partici- tween normal observers’ thresholds for motion parallax pate in this study. A brief history was taken from each and for binocular disparity. Although Rogers’ original amblyopic observer. Normal control observers were data (Howard & Rogers, 1995) show only a weak also recruited from the same subject pool. correlation (approximately r=0.27, P=0.38), the ex- Preliminary visual screening was performed with sev- clusion of two outliers with extraordinarily high stereo eral standardized tests. Monocular function was as- thresholds (each more than double the mean of the sessed with a 10 ft acuity chart and the Peli-Robson remaining group) results in a significant correlation contrast sensitivity chart illuminated at 85 cd/m2 (approximately r=0.62, P=0.04) between stereo and (Clement Clarke, Columbus, OH). Normal observers motion parallax thresholds. That is, analysis of the 11 were required to have a minimum Snellen monocular most clustered observers reveals a significant correla- acuity of 20/40, and a minimum log contrast sensitivity tion between stereo depth thresholds and motion paral- of 1.50. The amblyopic observers were required to meet lax thresholds. If this were indeed the case, one might the same standards in their best eye (which would later expect that a group of observers with poor stereo vision be used in the monocular motion parallax test). Stereo- would also perform poorly on a motion parallax task scopic visual function was assessed with the Randot while a group with normal stereo vision would perform and Stereofly tests (Stereo Optical Company, Chicago, much better on a motion parallax task. Such a result IL). Normal observers could have a stereo threshold no would support a psychoanatomical link between binoc- less than 60 s in each test. Amblyopic observers could ular stereopsis and motion parallax (Blake, 1995). have a threshold no better than 200 s in each test, However, an equally likely alternative might be thereby insuring that they truly had a deficit in stereo termed a compensation hypothesis (Howard & Rogers, vision. 1995). This compensation hypothesis predicts that ob- servers with poor stereo vision compensate for this 2.2. Stimuli depth perception deficit with improved motion parallax abilities. If this were the case, the group of observers Depth perception thresholds for both stereopsis and with poor stereo vision would perform equal to or motion parallax were determined with a random dot better than the group of normal observers. The study stimulus modeled on that used by Rogers and Graham presented here was designed to determine which of (1982). The stimulus in both conditions depicted a these two hypotheses is correct. horizontally oriented undulating corrugated surface. To further study a possible link between binocular The stimulus had a corrugated sinewave profile of 0.4 stereopsis and motion parallax, we examined the stereo cpd, which is in the range of peak sensitivity found by A.M. Thompson, M. Nawrot / Vision Research 39 (1999) 1407–1413 1409 Rogers and Graham (1982). The stimuli were created through an ADC card (National Instruments, Austin, from