Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

These studies used threshold and slant-matching tasks to assess and quantitatively measure human perception of 3-D planar images viewed through a stereomicroscope. The results are intended for use in developing augmented-reality surgical aids.

Background

Substantial research demonstrates that slant perception is performed with high accuracy from monocular and binocular cues, but less research concerns the effects of magnification. Viewing through a microscope affects the utility of monocular and stereo slant cues, but its impact is as yet unknown.

Method

Participants performed in a threshold slant-detection task and matched the slant of a tool to a surface. Different stimuli and monocular versus binocular viewing conditions were implemented to isolate stereo cues alone, stereo with perspective cues, accommodation cue only, and cues intrinsic to optical-coherence-tomography images.

Results

At magnification of 5x, slant thresholds with stimuli providing stereo cues approximated those reported for direct viewing, about 12°. Most participants (75%) who passed a stereoacuity pretest could match a tool to the slant of a surface viewed with stereo at 5x magnification, with mean compressive error of about 20% for optimized surfaces. Slant matching to optical coherence tomography images of the cornea viewed under the microscope was also demonstrated.

Conclusion

Despite the distortions and cue loss introduced by viewing under the stereomicroscope, most participants were able to detect and interact with slanted surfaces.

Application

The experiments demonstrated sensitivity to surface slant that supports the development of augmented-reality systems to aid microscope-aided surgery.

Keywords

vision perception-action medical devices and technologies radiology and medical imaging information processing visual displays pictorial displays object displays

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Galeotti

Macdonald

Wang

Horvath

Zhang

Klatzky

(2017). Generating an image that affords slant perception from stereo, without pictorial cues. Displays, 46, 16–24.

Galeotti

Sajjad

Wang

Kagemann

Shukla

Siegel

Stetten

(2010). The OCT penlight: In-situ image guidance for microsurgery. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, 7625, 02.

Gibson

J. J.

(1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gillam

Flagg

Finlay

(1984). Evidence for disparity change as the primary stimulus for stereoscopic processing. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 559–564.

Gillam

Pianta

M. J.

(2005). The effect of surface placement and surface overlap on stereo slant contrast and enhancement. Vision Research, 45, 3083–3095.

Horvath

Galeotti

Siegel

Stetten

(2014). Refocusing a scanned laser projector for small and bright images: Simultaneously controlling the profile of the laser beam and the boundary of the image. Applied Optics, 53, 5421–5424.

Kaernbach

(2001). Adaptive threshold estimation with unforced-choice tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 63, 1377–1388.

Klatzky

R. L.

Stetten

(2010). The disembodied eye: Consequences of displacing perception from action. Vision Research, 50, 2618–2626.

Knill

D. C.

(1998). Discrimination of planar surface from texture: Human and ideal observers compared. Vision Research, 38, 1683–1711.

10.

Knill

Saunders

J. A.

(2003). Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant? Vision Research, 43, 2539–2558.

11.

Marr

Poggio

(1979). A computational theory of human stereo vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 204, 301–328.

12.

O’Toole

Kersten

D. M.

(1992). Learning to see random-dot stereograms. Perception, 21, 227–243.

13.

Purdy

W. P.

(1958). The hypothesis of psychophysical correspondence in space perception (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

14.

Todd

J. T.

Christensen

J. C.

Guckes

K. M.

(2010). Are discrimination thresholds a valid measure of variance for judgments of slant from texture? Journal of Vision, 10, 1–18.

15.

Todd

J. T.

Thaler

(2010). The perception of 3D shape from texture based on directional width gradients. Journal of Vision, 5, 1–13.

16.

Todd

J. T.

Thaler

Dijkstra

T. M.

(2005). The effects of field of view on the perception of 3D slant from texture. Vision Research, 45, 1501–1517.

17.

Todd

J. T.

Thaler

Dijkstra

T. M.

Koenderink

J. J.

Kappers

A. M.

(2007). The effects of viewing angle, camera angle, and sign of surface curvature on the perception of three-dimensional shape from texture. Journal of Vision, 7, 1–16.

18.

Wojtkowski

(2010). High-speed optical coherence tomography: Basics and applications. Applied Optics, 49, D30–D61.

19.

Klatzky

Galeotti

(2013). Effects of magnification on depth perception and visually-guided reaching. Journal of Vision, 13, 220.

20.

Zimmerman

G. L.

Legge

G. E.

Cavanagh

(1995). Pictorial depth cues: A new slant. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 12, 17–26.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.37 MB

Slant Perception Under Stereomicroscopy

Abstract

Objective

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Application

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material