Depth perception in random dot stereograms is not affected by changes in either vergence or accommodation

A New Distance Stereotest by Autostereoscopic Display Using an Eye-Tracking Method

Objectives: This research aimed to present a novel glasses-free distance random-dot stereotest system (GFDRDSS) using an eye-tracking method.

Methods: A single-view autostereoscopic display applying a backlight control system combined with an eye-tracking method and the corresponding random-dot stereotest software were developed to create a GFDRDSS with a viewing distance of 5 m. The stereoacuity of 12 subjects with normal eye position was evaluated using the Randot Stereotest, Stereoscopic Test Charts vol. 3 (Yan’s Charts), Distance Randot^® Stereotest, and GFDRDSS.

Results: The GFDRDSS could provide distinct and stable glasses-free stereoscopic perception even while the subject was moving their head. It could evaluate binocular disparities of 40–2,400 arcsec. Eleven subjects with normal near visual acuity had fine near stereovision (20–60 arcsec) using the Randot stereotest and Yan’s Charts. Under refractive correction, 10 subjects had fine stereovision (≤60 arcsec) using the GFDRDSS at a distance of 5 m, and 9 had fine stereovision using the Distance Randot^® Stereotest at 3 m. Other subjects described the 100 arcsec-level stereograms correctly. The results exhibited a concordance of stereoacuity within one degrade between the two distance stereotests.

Conclusion: The proposed GFDRDSS can alternately project a couple of random-dot stereograms to the subjects’ eyes and provide a glasses-free distance stereotest, which showed good concordance with the Distance Randot^® Stereotest. More data are needed for statistical studies.

Visuomotor coordination is different for different directions in three-dimensional space

In most visuomotor tasks in which subjects have to reach to visual targets or move the hand along a particular trajectory, eye movements have been shown to lead hand movements. Because the dynamics of vergence eye movements is different from that of smooth pursuit and saccades, we have investigated the lead time of gaze relative to the hand for the depth component (vergence) and in the frontal plane (smooth pursuit and saccades) in a tracking task and in a tracing task in which human subjects were instructed to move the finger along a 3D path. For tracking, gaze leads finger position on average by 28 ± 6 ms (mean ± SE) for the components in the frontal plane but lags finger position by 95 ± 39 ms for the depth dimension. For tracing, gaze leads finger position by 151 ± 36 ms for the depth dimension. For the frontal plane, the mean lead time of gaze relative to the hand is 287 ± 13 ms. However, we found that the lead time in the frontal plane was inversely related to the tangential velocity of finger. This inverse relation for movements in the frontal plane could be explained by assuming that gaze leads the finger by a constant distance of ∼ 2.6 cm (range of 1.5-3.6 cm across subjects).

Updating Target Distance Across Eye Movements in Depth

We tested between two coding mechanisms that the brain may use to retain distance information about a target for a reaching movement across vergence eye movements. If the brain was to encode a retinal disparity representation (retinal model), i.e., target depth relative to the plane of fixation, each vergence eye movement would require an active update of this representation to preserve depth constancy. Alternatively, if the brain was to store an egocentric distance representation of the target by integrating retinal disparity and vergence signals at the moment of target presentation, this representation should remain stable across subsequent vergence shifts (nonretinal model). We tested between these schemes by measuring errors of human reaching movements ( n = 14 subjects) to remembered targets, briefly presented before a vergence eye movement. For comparison, we also tested their directional accuracy across version eye movements. With intervening vergence shifts, the memory-guided reaches showed an error pattern that was based on the new eye position and on the depth of the remembered target relative to that position. This suggests that target depth is recomputed after the gaze shift, supporting the retinal model. Our results also confirm earlier literature showing retinal updating of target direction. Furthermore, regression analyses revealed updating gains close to one for both target depth and direction, suggesting that the errors arise after the updating stage during the subsequent reference frame transformations that are involved in reaching.

Stereoacuity at distance and near

PURPOSE

Because previous studies have reported conflicting evidence, we examined a possible difference in stereoacuity between distance and near, in particular using a random-dot display. We compared distance and near stereoacuities using identical presentation formats at the two distances.

METHODS

Twelve young adults with low, stable refractive errors and apparently normal binocular vision participated. Stereoacuity was determined with a Mentor B-VAT II using Random Dot E (BVRDE) and Contour Circles (BVC) stereograms presented on a standard monitor (25 x 19.3 cm) at 518 cm (distance-habitual) and a small monitor (2.0 x 1.4 cm) at 40 cm (near-habitual). To examine whether accommodation-convergence influenced stereoacuity, testing at 40 cm was repeated with the addition of +2.50 DS lenses and base-in prisms (near-compensated) that created the same accommodation and convergence demands as for distance-habitual viewing.

RESULTS

The two stereotests produced similar findings. Stereoacuity was not significantly different for distance-habitual and near-habitual viewing of the BVRDE (p = 0.43) and BVC (p = 0.79) stereotests. Near-compensated stereoacuity was worse than near-habitual (BVRDE, p = 0.005; BVC, p = 0.004) and distance-habitual (BVRDE, p = 0.05; BVC, p = 0.003) for both stereotests. Because near stereoacuity with yoked prisms (control condition) was the same as without prism (near-habitual), prism-induced optical distortions cannot account for the difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Stereoacuity was not different at distance and near under normal viewing conditions. The conflict between subject knowledge of target proximity and the optically-induced relaxation of accommodation and convergence, or an inaccurate accommodative-convergence response, might have caused poor near-compensated stereoacuity.