Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia: effects of disparity, contrast polarity and contrast imbalance

S. Wallis, M. Georgeson

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

Abstract

With different images to each eye, one may experience fusion, suppression of one eye’s view, or diplopia. To understand better the underlying binocular processes, we studied perception of binocular edges as a function of binocular disparity. Single, Gaussian-blurred, horizontal edges (blur B = 8 min of arc) were shown to each eye at various vertical disparities (0 to 8B), with the same or opposite contrast polarity. Observers could indicate the position and polarity of a single perceived edge, or report 2 edges. Diplopia increased with disparity, but when contrasts were unequal the lower-contrast edge was often not seen, particularly at disparities 3 to 5B. We developed a simple descriptive model to interpret the behavioural responses as arising from (a) the probability of fusion (assumed to fall with increasing disparity), (b) the probability of suppression occurring when fusion fails, and (c) the role of positional noise and criterion in judgments of edge position. From this modelling, we conclude that fusion extends to disparities of about 2.5B for all observers, but is absent for opposite polarities. Probability of suppression also declined monotonically with increasing disparity, increased with contrast imbalance, and tended to be lower for opposite polarities, but was highly variable across observers.
LanguageEnglish
Pages16
Number of pages1
JournalPerception
Volume41
Issue numberSuppl.1
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2012
Event35th European Conference on Visual Perception - Alghero, Italy
Duration: 2 Sep 20126 Sep 2012

Fingerprint

Binoculars
Diplopia
Fusion reactions
Vision Disparity
Noise

Bibliographical note

ECVP 2012 Abstracts

Cite this

@article{8abbef1d363f4843ac721e5664067c2e,
title = "Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia: effects of disparity, contrast polarity and contrast imbalance",
abstract = "With different images to each eye, one may experience fusion, suppression of one eye’s view, or diplopia. To understand better the underlying binocular processes, we studied perception of binocular edges as a function of binocular disparity. Single, Gaussian-blurred, horizontal edges (blur B = 8 min of arc) were shown to each eye at various vertical disparities (0 to 8B), with the same or opposite contrast polarity. Observers could indicate the position and polarity of a single perceived edge, or report 2 edges. Diplopia increased with disparity, but when contrasts were unequal the lower-contrast edge was often not seen, particularly at disparities 3 to 5B. We developed a simple descriptive model to interpret the behavioural responses as arising from (a) the probability of fusion (assumed to fall with increasing disparity), (b) the probability of suppression occurring when fusion fails, and (c) the role of positional noise and criterion in judgments of edge position. From this modelling, we conclude that fusion extends to disparities of about 2.5B for all observers, but is absent for opposite polarities. Probability of suppression also declined monotonically with increasing disparity, increased with contrast imbalance, and tended to be lower for opposite polarities, but was highly variable across observers.",
author = "S. Wallis and M. Georgeson",
note = "ECVP 2012 Abstracts",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "16",
journal = "Perception",
issn = "0301-0066",
publisher = "Pion Ltd.",
number = "Suppl.1",

}

Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia: effects of disparity, contrast polarity and contrast imbalance. / Wallis, S.; Georgeson, M.

In: Perception, Vol. 41, No. Suppl.1, 09.2012, p. 16.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

TY - JOUR

T1 - Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia: effects of disparity, contrast polarity and contrast imbalance

AU - Wallis, S.

AU - Georgeson, M.

N1 - ECVP 2012 Abstracts

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - With different images to each eye, one may experience fusion, suppression of one eye’s view, or diplopia. To understand better the underlying binocular processes, we studied perception of binocular edges as a function of binocular disparity. Single, Gaussian-blurred, horizontal edges (blur B = 8 min of arc) were shown to each eye at various vertical disparities (0 to 8B), with the same or opposite contrast polarity. Observers could indicate the position and polarity of a single perceived edge, or report 2 edges. Diplopia increased with disparity, but when contrasts were unequal the lower-contrast edge was often not seen, particularly at disparities 3 to 5B. We developed a simple descriptive model to interpret the behavioural responses as arising from (a) the probability of fusion (assumed to fall with increasing disparity), (b) the probability of suppression occurring when fusion fails, and (c) the role of positional noise and criterion in judgments of edge position. From this modelling, we conclude that fusion extends to disparities of about 2.5B for all observers, but is absent for opposite polarities. Probability of suppression also declined monotonically with increasing disparity, increased with contrast imbalance, and tended to be lower for opposite polarities, but was highly variable across observers.

AB - With different images to each eye, one may experience fusion, suppression of one eye’s view, or diplopia. To understand better the underlying binocular processes, we studied perception of binocular edges as a function of binocular disparity. Single, Gaussian-blurred, horizontal edges (blur B = 8 min of arc) were shown to each eye at various vertical disparities (0 to 8B), with the same or opposite contrast polarity. Observers could indicate the position and polarity of a single perceived edge, or report 2 edges. Diplopia increased with disparity, but when contrasts were unequal the lower-contrast edge was often not seen, particularly at disparities 3 to 5B. We developed a simple descriptive model to interpret the behavioural responses as arising from (a) the probability of fusion (assumed to fall with increasing disparity), (b) the probability of suppression occurring when fusion fails, and (c) the role of positional noise and criterion in judgments of edge position. From this modelling, we conclude that fusion extends to disparities of about 2.5B for all observers, but is absent for opposite polarities. Probability of suppression also declined monotonically with increasing disparity, increased with contrast imbalance, and tended to be lower for opposite polarities, but was highly variable across observers.

UR - http://pec.sagepub.com/content/41/1_suppl/1

M3 - Meeting abstract

VL - 41

SP - 16

JO - Perception

T2 - Perception

JF - Perception

SN - 0301-0066

IS - Suppl.1

ER -