The observations reported earlier by the authors are shown to support the view that the constraints for fusion are stimulus-centered and not observer-centered, thus justifying the reformulation of the disparity limits for binocular fusion in terms of a gradient limit which is disputed by Krol and van de Grind.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraddickO J, 1979“Binocular single vision and perceptual processing”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B204503–512.
2.
BurtP JJuleszB, 1980a“A disparity gradient limit for binocular fusion”Science208615–617.
3.
BurtP JJuleszB, 1980b“Modifications of the classical notion of Panum's fusional area”Perception9671–682.
4.
FenderD HJuleszB, 1967“Extension of Panum's fusional area in binocularly stabilized vision”Journal of the Optical Society of America57819–830.
5.
JuleszB, 1971Foundations of Cyclopean Perception (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
6.
KoenderinkJ JVan DoornA J, 1976“Geometry of binocular vision and a model for stereopsis”Biological Cybernetics2129–35.
7.
KrolJ Dvan de GrindW A, 1980“The double-nail illusion: Experiments on binocular vision with nails, needles, and pins”Perception9651–669.
8.
KrolJ DVan de GrindW A, 1982“Rehabilitation of a classical notion of Panum's fusional area”Perception this issue.
9.
OgleK N, 1950Researches in Binocular Vision (Philadelphia: Sanders).
10.
OgleK N, 1962“Spatial localization through binocular vision” in The Eyevolume 4, Ed. DavsonH (New York: Academic Press) pp 271–324.
11.
SteinmanR MCollewijnH, 1978“How our two eyes are held steady”paper presented at the 1978 Annual meeting of the Optical Society of America, San Francisco.
12.
TylerC W, 1973“Stereoscopic vision: Cortical limitations and a disparity scaling effect”Science181276–278.
