It is argued that (1) the work of Burt and Julesz does not challenge the classical notion of Panum's fusional area; (2) their disparity gradient concept is contradicted by some of their own findings as well as by those of Krol and van de Grind; (3) their results can be accounted for by the classical concept of Panum's fusional area if eye vergence is taken into account; (4) the explanations suggested by Burt and Julesz for the depth perception aspects of Panum's limiting case and the double-nail illusion are based on unwarranted generalisation of results concerning binocular direction vision.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurtPJuleszB, 1980“Modifications of the classical notion of Panum's fusional area”Perception9671–682.
2.
KrolJ D, 1982Perceptual Ghosts in Stereopsis: A Ghostly Problem in Binocular VisionPhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
3.
KrolJ Dvan de GrindW A, 1980“The double-nail illusion: Experiments on binocular vision with nails, needles, and pins”Perception9651–669.
4.
LauE, 1924“Über das stereoskopische Sehen”Psychologische Forschung6121–126.
5.
LinkszA, 1952Physiology of the Eye volume 2 Vision (New York: Grune and Stratton).
6.
MitchellD E, 1966“Review of the concept of Panum's fusional areas”American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry (June) 387–401.
7.
OgleK N, 1950Researches in Binocular Vision (Philadelphia: W B Saunders).
8.
OgleK N, 1962“The optical space sense” in The Eyevolume 4 Ed. DavsonH (London: Academic Press).
