Contrary to the claims of Ono it is argued that the principles and rules of direction vision do not account for the double-nail illusions, and that the ‘ghost’ concept is hidden rather than exorcised in Ono's approach.
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.
BurtPJuleszB, 1982“The disparity gradient limit for binocular fusion: An answer to J D Krol and W A van de Grind”Perception11621–624
3.
CoganA I, 1978“Fusion at the site of the ‘ghosts’”Vision Research18657–664
4.
Van de GrindW A, 1984“Decomposition and neuroreduction of visual perception” in Limits in Perception Eds van DoornA Jvan de GrindW AKoenderinkJ J (Utrecht: VNU Science Press) ch 15, pp 431–494
5.
HeringE, 1861Zur Lehre vom Ortsinne der Netzhaut (Leipzig: Engelmann)
6.
KoenderinkJ J, 1984“The concept of local sign” in Limits in Perception Eds van DoornA Jvan de GrindW AKoenderinkJ J (Utrecht: VNU Science Press) ch 16, pp 495–547
7.
KrolJ D, 1982Perceptual Ghosts in Stereopsis: A Ghostly Problem in Binocular VisionPhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, ISBN 90-9000382-7
8.
KrolJ DVan de GrindW A, 1980“The double-nail illusion: Experiments on binocular vision with nails, needles, and pins”Perception9651–669
9.
KrolJ DVan de GrindW A, 1982“Rehabilitation of a classical notion of Panum's fusional area”Perception11615–619
10.
KrolJ DVan de GrindW A, 1983“Depth from dichoptic edges depends on vergence tuning”Perception12425–438
11.
LinkszA, 1952Physiology of the Eye volume 2. Vision (New York: Grune and Stratton)
12.
OnoH, 1984“Exorcising the double-nail illusion: Giving up the ghosts”Perception13753–758
13.
OnoHAngusRGregorP, 1977“Binocular single vision achieved by fusion and suppression”Perception & Psychophysics21513–521
