Early studies of binocular and stereoscopic vision1

Stereopsis without correspondence

Stereopsis has traditionally been considered a complex visual ability, restricted to large-brained animals. The discovery in the 1980s that insects, too, have stereopsis, therefore, challenged theories of stereopsis. How can such simple brains see in three dimensions? A likely answer is that insect stereopsis has evolved to produce simple behaviour, such as orienting towards the closer of two objects or triggering a strike when prey comes within range. Scientific thinking about stereopsis has been unduly anthropomorphic, for example assuming that stereopsis must require binocular fusion or a solution of the stereo correspondence problem. In fact, useful behaviour can be produced with very basic stereoscopic algorithms which make no attempt to achieve fusion or correspondence, or to produce even a coarse map of depth across the visual field. This may explain why some aspects of insect stereopsis seem poorly designed from an engineering point of view: for example, paying no attention to whether interocular contrast or velocities match. Such algorithms demonstrably work well enough in practice for their species, and may prove useful in particular autonomous applications. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'New approaches to 3D vision'.

The vision of Helmholtz

Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz (1821-1894) began investigating vision at a time when its study was undergoing a revolution. Laboratory experiments were augmenting the long history of naturalistic observations. Instruments of stimulus control enabled the manipulation of time and space in ways that had not been possible previously, and Helmholtz added to their tally. Vision was a central issue in his early years as an academic, and the bicentenary of his birth is here celebrated visually. Much of his research on vision was described in his Handbuch der physiologischen Optik, which was translated into English to mark the centenary of his birth. The history of his Handbuch is examined, together with illustrating highlights from it. Helmholtz's contributions to understanding the eye as an optical instrument, the sensations of vision, and perception were expressed in the three parts of the Handbuch, which became the three volumes of his Treatise on Physiological Optics.

Binocular Vision and Stereopsis Across the Animal Kingdom

Most animals have at least some binocular overlap, i.e., a region of space that is viewed by both eyes. This reduces the overall visual field and raises the problem of combining two views of the world, seen from different vantage points, into a coherent whole. However, binocular vision also offers many potential advantages, including increased ability to see around obstacles and increased contrast sensitivity. One particularly interesting use for binocular vision is comparing information from both eyes to derive information about depth. There are many different ways in which this might be done, but in this review, I refer to them all under the general heading of stereopsis. This review examines the different possible uses of binocular vision and stereopsis and compares what is currently known about the neural basis of stereopsis in different taxa. Studying different animals helps us break free of preconceptions stemming from the way that stereopsis operates in human vision and provides new insights into the different possible forms of stereopsis. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Vision Science, Volume 7 is September 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Helmholtz at 200

Hermann von Helmholtz was born 200 years ago, but his influence on vision research is enduring. His legacy in vision is celebrated visually with anaglyphs that combine portraits of him with illustrations from his publications. Emphasis is directed principally to his Treatise on Physiological Optics. Among the optical instruments Helmholtz invented were the ophthalmoscope, ophthalmometer, and telestereoscope. Mention is made of his investigations into accommodation, colour vision, eye movements, stereoscopic vision, binocular rivalry, and lustre. Helmholtz also presented his analyses of vision and art in several of his Popular Lectures.

On Stereoscopic Art

Pictorial art is typically viewed with two eyes, but it is not binocular in the sense that it requires two eyes to appreciate the art. Two-dimensional representational art works allude to depth that they do not contain, and a variety of stratagems is enlisted to convey the impression that surfaces on the picture plane are at different distances from the viewer. With the invention of the stereoscope by Wheatstone in the 1830s, it was possible to produce two pictures with defined horizontal disparities between them to create a novel impression of depth. Stereoscopy and photography were made public at about the same time and their marriage was soon cemented; most stereoscopic art is now photographic. Wheatstone sought to examine stereoscopic depth without monocular pictorial cues. He was unable to do this, but it was achieved a century later by Julesz with random-dot stereograms The early history of non-photographic stereoscopic art is described as well as reference to some contemporary works. Novel stereograms employing a wider variety of carrier patterns than random dots are presented as anaglyphs; they show modulations of pictorial surface depths as well as inclusions within a binocular picture.

Ocular Equivocation: The Rivalry Between Wheatstone and Brewster

Ocular equivocation was the term given by Brewster in 1844 to binocular contour rivalry seen with Wheatstone's stereoscope. The rivalries between Wheatstone and Brewster were personal as well as perceptual. In the 1830s, both Wheatstone and Brewster came to stereoscopic vision armed with their individual histories of research on vision. Brewster was an authority on physical optics and had devised the kaleidoscope; Wheatstone extended his research on audition to render acoustic patterns visible with his kaleidophone or phonic kaleidoscope. Both had written on subjective visual phenomena, a topic upon which they first clashed at the inaugural meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1832 (the year Wheatstone made the first stereoscopes). Wheatstone published his account of the mirror stereoscope in 1838; Brewster's initial reception of it was glowing but he later questioned Wheatstone's priority. They both described investigations of binocular contour rivalry but their interpretations diverged. As was the case for stereoscopic vision, Wheatstone argued for central processing whereas Brewster's analysis was peripheral and based on visible direction. Brewster's lenticular stereoscope and binocular camera were described in 1849. They later clashed over Brewster's claim that the Chimenti drawings were made for a 16th-century stereoscope. The rivalry between Wheatstone and Brewster is illustrated with anaglyphs that can be viewed with red/cyan glasses and in Universal Freeview format; they include rivalling 'perceptual portraits' as well as examples of the stimuli used to study ocular equivocation.

Image and Imagination of the Life Sciences : The Stereomicroscope on the Cusp of Modern Biology

The Greenough stereomicroscope, or "Stemi" as it is colloquially known among microscopists, is a stereoscopic binocular instrument yielding three-dimensional depth perception when working with larger microscopic specimens. It has become ubiquitous in laboratory practice since its introduction by the unknown scientist Horatio Saltonstall Greenough in 1892. However, because it enabled new experimental practices rather than new knowledge, it has largely eluded historical and epistemological investigation, even though its design, production, and reception in the scientific community was inextricably connected to the new epistemological ideals of the life sciences caught between natural history and modern science. The development of the microscope will be contextualized within the scientific and technological landscape, showing how Greenough navigated his way through this terrain, and what led him to sow the seeds for the stereoscopic microscope. The historical controversy over the optical mechanism, through which the instrument would generate the desired depth perception, and how this quality was embedded into laboratory practice, will be examined. Subsequently, it will become evident that the specific image of nature produced by the stereoscopic microscope corresponded to the new ideals of the life sciences and their representation.

The disparate histories of binocular vision and binaural hearing

Vision and hearing are dependent on disparities of spatial patterns received by two eyes and on time and intensity differences to two ears. However, the experiences of a single world have masked attention to these disparities. While eyes and ears are paired, there has not been parity in the attention directed to their functioning. Phenomena involving binocular vision were commented upon since antiquity whereas those about binaural hearing are much more recent. This history is compared with respect to the experimental manipulations of dichoptic and dichotic stimuli and the instruments used to stimulate the paired organs. Binocular color mixing led to studies of binaural hearing and direction and distance in visual localization were analyzed before those for auditory localization. Experimental investigations began in the nineteenth century with the invention of instruments like the stereoscope and pseudoscope, soon to be followed by their binaural equivalents, the stethophone and pseudophone.

Capturing Motion and Depth Before Cinematography

Visual representations of biological states have traditionally faced two problems: they lacked motion and depth. Attempts were made to supply these wants over many centuries, but the major advances were made in the early-nineteenth century. Motion was synthesized by sequences of slightly different images presented in rapid succession and depth was added by presenting slightly different images to each eye. Apparent motion and depth were combined some years later, but they tended to be applied separately. The major figures in this early period were Wheatstone, Plateau, Horner, Duboscq, Claudet, and Purkinje. Others later in the century, like Marey and Muybridge, were stimulated to extend the uses to which apparent motion and photography could be applied to examining body movements. These developments occurred before the birth of cinematography, and significant insights were derived from attempts to combine motion and depth.

Magnitude of perceived depth of multiple stereo transparent surfaces

According to the geometric relational expression of binocular stereopsis, for a given viewing distance the magnitude of the perceived depth of objects would be the same, as long as the disparity magnitudes were the same. However, we found that this is not necessarily the case for random-dot stereograms that depict parallel, overlapping, transparent stereoscopic surfaces (POTS). The data from five experiments indicated that (1) the magnitude of perceived depth between the two outer surfaces of a three- or a four-POTS configuration can be smaller than that for an identical pair of stereo surfaces of a two-POTS configuration for the range of disparities that we used (5.2-19.4 arcmin); (2) this phenomenon can be observed irrespective of the total dot density of a POTS configuration, at least for the range that we used (1.1-3.3 dots/deg(2)); and (3) the magnitude of perceived depth between the two outer surfaces of a POTS configuration can be reduced as the total number of stereo surfaces is increased, up to four surfaces. We explained these results in terms of a higher-order process or processes, with an output representing perceived depth magnitude, which is weakened when the number of its surfaces is increased.

DaVinci's Mona Lisa entering the next dimension

For several of Leonardo da Vinci's paintings, such as The Virgin and Child with St Anne or the Mona Lisa, there exist copies produced by his own studio. In case of the Mona Lisa, a quite exceptional, rediscovered studio copy was presented to the public in 2012 by the Prado Museum in Madrid. Not only does it mirror its famous counterpart superficially; it also features the very same corrections to the lower layers, which indicates that da Vinci and the 'copyist' must have elaborated their panels simultaneously. On the basis of subjective (thirty-two participants estimated painter-model constellations) as well as objective data (analysis of trajectories between landmarks of both paintings), we revealed that both versions differ slightly in perspective. We reconstructed the original studio setting and found evidence that the disparity between both paintings mimics human binocular disparity. This points to the possibility that the two Giocondas together might represent the first stereoscopic image in world history.

Dichoptic Viewing Methods for Binocular Rivalry Research: Prospects for Large-Scale Clinical and Genetic Studies

Binocular rivalry (BR) is an intriguing phenomenon that occurs when two different images are presented, one to each eye, resulting in alternation orrivalrybetween the percepts. The phenomenon has been studied for nearly 200 years, with renewed and intensive investigation over recent decades. Therateof perceptual switching has long been known to vary widely between individuals but to be relatively stable within individuals. A recent twin study demonstrated that individual variation in BR rate is under substantial genetic control, a finding that also represented the first report, using a large study, of genetic contribution for any post-retinal visual processing phenomenon. The twin study had been prompted by earlier work showing BR rate was slow in the heritable psychiatric condition, bipolar disorder (BD). Together, these studies suggested that slow BR may represent an endophenotype for BD, and heralded the advent of modern clinical and genetic studies of rivalry. This new focus has coincided with rapid advances in 3D display technology, but despite such progress, specific development of technology for rivalry research has been lacking. This review therefore compares different display methods for BR research across several factors, including viewing parameters, image quality, equipment cost, compatibility with other investigative methods, subject group, and sample size, with a focus on requirements specific to large-scale clinical and genetic studies. It is intended to be a resource for investigators new to BR research, such as clinicians and geneticists, and to stimulate the development of 3D display technology for advancing interdisciplinary studies of rivalry.

The ghost of Helioth and his stereoscope: the return of a phantom

Among the myths surrounding the invention of the stereoscope, that of Helioth stands as a supreme example of shoddy scholarship and its subsequent dissemination. Helioth was said to have made a simple stereoscope before Wheatstone presented his mirror stereoscope to the public in 1838. There is no evidence of Helioth's existence prior to a report in the mid-twentieth century, and despite attempts to dispel his ghost it has recently resurfaced.

Wheatstone and the Origins of Moving Stereoscopic Images

The recent resurgence of stereoscopic films and television programmes occasions reflection on their origins. Experimental studies of stroboscopic (apparent) motion and stereoscopic vision have their origins in London in the decade from 1825 to 1835. Instruments were devised which simulated motion and depth: sequences of still images could appear to move, and paired pictures (with small horizontal disparities and presented to different eyes) were seen in depth. Until that time, the experience of motion was almost always a consequence of object or observer movement: apparent motion was a novelty. By contrast, stereoscopic vision was the near-universal experience of using two eyes in the natural environment, but its basis remained mysterious. The stereoscope rendered the normal conditions for seeing depth from disparity experimentally tractable. The instruments were called philosophical toys because they fulfilled the dual roles of furthering scientific experiment on the senses and of providing popular amusement. The investigations were initially driven by the need for stimulus control so that the methods of physics could be applied to the study of perceptual phenomena. Many varieties of stroboscopic discs and stereoscopes were devised thereafter and their popularity increased enormously after 1840, when combined with photography. Presenting sequences of stereoscopic photographs in apparent motion was attempted in the 1850s, but proved less successful. The catalyst involved in all these developments was Charles Wheatstone.