Types of size disparity and the perception of surface slant

Monocular and binocular edges enhance the perception of stereoscopic slant

Gradients of absolute binocular disparity across a slanted surface are often considered the basis for stereoscopic slant perception. However, perceived stereo slant around a vertical axis is usually slow and significantly under-estimated for isolated surfaces. Perceived slant is enhanced when surrounding surfaces provide a relative disparity gradient or depth step at the edges of the slanted surface, and also in the presence of monocular occlusion regions (sidebands). Here we investigate how different kinds of depth information at surface edges enhance stereo slant about a vertical axis. In Experiment 1, perceived slant decreased with increasing surface width, suggesting that the relative disparity between the left and right edges was used to judge slant. Adding monocular sidebands increased perceived slant for all surface widths. In Experiment 2, observers matched the slant of surfaces that were isolated or had a context of either monocular or binocular sidebands in the frontal plane. Both types of sidebands significantly increased perceived slant, but the effect was greater with binocular sidebands. These results were replicated in a second paradigm in which observers matched the depth of two probe dots positioned in front of slanted surfaces (Experiment 3). A large bias occurred for the surface without sidebands, yet this bias was reduced when monocular sidebands were present, and was nearly eliminated with binocular sidebands. Our results provide evidence for the importance of edges in stereo slant perception, and show that depth from monocular occlusion geometry and binocular disparity may interact to resolve complex 3D scenes.

Latitude and longitude vertical disparities

The literature on vertical disparity is complicated by the fact that several different definitions of the term "vertical disparity" are in common use, often without a clear statement about which is intended or a widespread appreciation of the properties of the different definitions. Here, we examine two definitions of retinal vertical disparity: elevation-latitude and elevation-longitude disparities. Near the fixation point, these definitions become equivalent, but in general, they have quite different dependences on object distance and binocular eye posture, which have not previously been spelt out. We present analytical approximations for each type of vertical disparity, valid for more general conditions than previous derivations in the literature: we do not restrict ourselves to objects near the fixation point or near the plane of regard, and we allow for non-zero torsion, cyclovergence, and vertical misalignments of the eyes. We use these expressions to derive estimates of the latitude and longitude vertical disparities expected at each point in the visual field, averaged over all natural viewing. Finally, we present analytical expressions showing how binocular eye position-gaze direction, convergence, torsion, cyclovergence, and vertical misalignment-can be derived from the vertical disparity field and its derivatives at the fovea.

Approximation, torsion, and amodally-completed surfaces

Consider a stereoscopic display simulating two rectangular patches, the lower frontoparallel and the upper slanted around the vertical axis. When the two patches are amodally completed and appear as the unoccluded parts of a smooth surface partially hidden by a foreground frontoparallel surface, either real or illusory, their relative slant is underestimated with respect to a baseline condition in which they are perceived as separate rectangles. Slant assimilation was studied in three experiments using with- vs. without-occluder displays and two methods, slant matching and speeded classification of twist direction. In Experiments 1 and 2 we found slant assimilation in with-occluder displays and slant contrast in without-occluder displays. In Experiment 3 we isolated a component of slant assimilation attributable to the mere presence of the occluder. Twist classification performance was impaired even when edge geometry hindered amodal completion, but the performance loss was larger when surface patches were amodally completed. To minimize the required amount of torsion, input fragments are misperceived, indicating that in limiting conditions amodal completion is mediated by approximation rather than interpolation. Slant assimilation decreases as twist angle increases, up to a limit above which the visual system does not support the formation of a smooth amodal surface with torsion.

Hinge versus twist: the effects of 'reference surfaces' and discontinuities on stereoscopic slant perception

Stereoscopic slant perception around a vertical axis (horizontal slant) is often found to be strongly attenuated relative to geometric prediction. Stereo slant is much greater, however, when an adjacent surface, stereoscopically in the frontal plane, is added. This slant enhancement is often attributed to the presence of a 'reference surface' or to a spatial change in the disparity gradient (introducing second and higher derivatives of disparity). Gillam, Chambers, and Russo (1988 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14 163-175) questioned the role of these factors in that placement of the frontal-plane surface in a direction collinear with the slant axis (twist configuration) sharply reduced latency for perceiving slant whereas placing the same surface in a direction orthogonal to the slant axis (hinge configuration) had little effect. We here confirm these findings for slant magnitude, showing a striking advantage for twist over hinge configurations. We also examined contrast slant measured on the frontal-plane surface in the hinge and twist configurations. Under conditions where test and inducer surfaces have centres at the same depth for twist and hinge, we found that twist configurations produced strong negative slant contrast, while hinge configurations produced significant positive contrast or slant assimilation. We conclude that stereo slant and contrast effects for neighbouring surfaces can only be understood from the patterns and gradients of step disparities present. It is not adequate to consider the second surface merely as a reference slant for the first or as having its effect via a spatial change in the disparity gradient.

Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays

OBJECTIVE

We provide a review and analysis of much of the published literature on visual perception issues that impact the design and use of head-mounted displays (HMDs).

BACKGROUND

Unlike the previous literature on HMDs, this review draws heavily from the basic vision literature in order to help provide insight for future design solutions for HMDs.

METHOD

Included in this review are articles and books found cited in other works as well as articles and books obtained from an Internet search.

RESULTS

Issues discussed include the effect of brightness and contrast on depth of field, dark focus, dark vergence, and perceptual constancy; the effect of accommodation-vergence synergy on perceptual constancy, eyestrain, and discomfort; the relationship of field of view to the functioning of different visual pathways and the types of visual-motor tasks mediated by them; the relationship of binocular input to visual suppression; and the importance of head movements, head tracking, and display update lag.

CONCLUSION

This paper offers a set of recommendations for the design and use of HMDs.

APPLICATION

Consideration of the basic vision literature will provide insight for future design solutions for HMDs.

The effect of surface placement and surface overlap on stereo slant contrast and enhancement

Stereoscopic slant contrast is an apparent slant induced in a stereoscopically frontal plane surface (the test) opposite in direction to the specified stereoscopic slant of a neighbouring surface (the inducer). Test surfaces offset from the inducer in a direction collinear with the axis of slant (twist) show more contrast than those offset in a direction orthogonal to the axis of slant (hinge). We attribute this anisotropy to the presence and extent of a gradient of relative disparity in twist configurations and the absence of such a gradient in hinge configurations. This hypothesis was tested by measuring the perceived slant of the test and inducer surfaces for horizontal and vertical axes of inducer slant and collinear and orthogonal surface offsets. For vertical axis slant, the hypothesis was supported; contrast variations with position of the test surface could be explained by variations in relative slant. For horizontal axis slant, variations in contrast could be accounted for by normalisation of the slanted surface, with relative slant remaining constant. Two further experiments showed that the extent of the gradient of relative disparity rather than the area of texture overlap of the two surfaces best predicted the contrast results and that perceived relative slant did not vary with the absolute slants of the two surfaces. The arrangement of stereo surfaces is critical in predicting their relative slant.

Effects of disparity-perspective cue conflict on depth contrast

The role of disparity-perspective cue conflict in depth contrast was examined. A central square and a surrounding frame were observed in a stereoscope. Five conditions were compared: (1) only disparity was introduced into either the centre or surround stimulus, (2) only perspective was introduced into the centre or surround, (3) concordant perspective and disparity were introduced into the centre or surround, (4) disparity was introduced into one stimulus and perspective into the other, and (5) only the centre stimulus was presented with horizontal shear disparity and perspective manipulated independently. The results show that individual differences in depth contrast were related to individual differences in the weighting of disparity and perspective in the single-stimulus conditions. We conclude that conflict between disparity and perspective contributes to depth contrast. However, significant depth contrast occurred when there was no disparity-perspective cue conflict, indicating that this cue conflict is not the sole mechanism producing depth contrast.

Surface separation decreases stereoscopic slant but a monocular aperture increases it

When an isolated surface is stereoscopically slanted around its vertical axis, perceived slant is attenuated relative to prediction, whereas when a frontal-plane surface is placed above or below the slanted surface, slant is close to the predicted magnitude. Gillam et al (1988 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14 163-175) have argued that this slant enhancement is due to the introduction of a gradient of relative disparities across the abutment of the two surfaces which is a more effective stimulus for slant than is the gradient of absolute disparities present when the slanted surface is presented alone. To test this claim we varied the separation between the two surfaces, along either the vertical or depth axis. Since these manipulations have been reported to reduce the depth response to individual relative disparities, they should similarly affect any slant response based on a gradient of relative disparities. As predicted, increasing the separation, vertically or in depth, systematically reduced both the perceived slant of the stereoscopically slanted surface and also the stereo contrast slant induced in the frontal-plane surface. These results are not predicted by alternative accounts of slant enhancement (disparity-gradient contrast, normalisation, frame of reference). We also demonstrated that sidebands of monocular texture, when added to equate the half-image widths of the slanted surface, increased the perceived slant of this surface (particularly when presented alone) and reduced the contrast slant. Monocular texture, by signalling occlusion, appeared to provide absolute slant information which determined how the total relative slant perceived between the surfaces was allocated to each.

Depth interactions between inclined and slanted surfaces in vertical and horizontal orientations

Depth interactions between a frontal test surface and an adjacent induction surface were measured as a function of the type of disparity in the induction surface and of the vertical/horizontal orientation of the boundary between the surfaces. The types of disparity were 4 degrees horizontal-shear disparity, 4 degrees vertical-shear disparity, and 4 degrees rotation disparity; 4% horizontal-size disparity, 4% vertical-size disparity, and 4% overall-size disparity. Depth contrast in a frontal surface was produced by surfaces containing horizontal-size disparity but not by those containing horizontal-shear disparity. Vertical-shear and vertical-size disparities produced induced effects in both the induction and the test surface, which is here explained in terms of deformation-disparity processing. Effects of rotation disparity on the test surface can be accounted for in terms of cyclovergence, deformation disparity, and perhaps also depth contrast. The fact that horizontal-size disparity produced more depth contrast than horizontal-shear disparity is due to an anisotropy of disparity processing rather than the relative orientation of the surfaces. Ground surfaces appeared more slanted than ceiling surfaces. Surfaces containing horizontal disparities produced a sharp boundary with the test surface because horizontal disparities are processed locally. Surfaces with vertical disparities produced a gradual boundary with the test surface because vertical disparities are processed over a wider area.

Types of size disparity and the perception of surface slant

We examined (i) perceived slant of a textured surface about a vertical axis as a function of disparity magnitude for horizontal-size disparity, vertical-size disparity, and overall-size disparity; and (ii) interactions between patterns with various types and magnitudes of size disparity and superimposed or adjacent zero-disparity stimuli. Horizontal-size disparity produced slant which increased with increasing disparity, was enhanced by superimposed zero-disparity stimuli, and induced contrasting slant in superimposed or adjacent zero-disparity stimuli. Vertical-size disparity produced opposite slant (induced effect) which was reduced to near zero by a superimposed zero-disparity pattern and both patterns appeared as one surface. Adjacent vertical-size-disparity and zero-disparity patterns appeared as separate surfaces with a wide curved boundary. Overall-size disparity produced slant which was enhanced by a superimposed zero-disparity pattern and less so by a zero-disparity line, and induced more slant in a zero-disparity line than in a zero-disparity pattern. The results are discussed in terms of depth underestimation of isolated surfaces, depth enhancement, depth contrast, and the processing of deformation disparity.