Convergent and divergent stereo mechanisms were compared in their ability to recover structure from motion. Contrary to a recent result reported by Richards and Lieberman, no difference in their performance was found; both mechanisms appeared equally capable of supporting the perception of good structure from motion. Possible reasons for the disparate results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FrisbyJ P, 1984“An old illusion and a new theory of stereoscopic depth perception”Nature (London)307592–593
2.
KimmelH DVan OlstE HOrlebekeJ F (eds), 1979The Orienting Reflex in Humans (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)
3.
KoenderinkJ JVan DoornA J, 1976“Geometry of binocular vision and a model of stereopsis”Biological Cybernetics2129–35
4.
MayhewJ E WLonguet-HigginsH C, 1982“A computational model of binocular depth perception”Nature (London)297376–379
5.
OgleK N, 1950Researches in Binocular Vision (Philadelphia, PA: W B Saunders Company)
6.
PrazdnyK, 1986“Three-dimensional structure from long-range apparent motion”Perception15619–625
7.
RichardsW, 1985“Structure from stereo and motion”Journal of the Optical Society of America A2343–349
8.
RichardsWFoleyJ M, 1971“Interhemispheric processing of binocular disparity”Journal of the Optical Society of America61419–421
9.
RichardsWLiebermanH R, 1985“Correlation between stereo ability and the recovery of structure from motion”American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics62111–118
10.
StentonS PFrisbyJ PMayhewJ E W, 1984“Vertical disparity pooling and the induced effect”Nature (London)309622–623
