Two historical strands in studying visual direction1

Topical Review: Methodological Variables in Clinical and Laboratory Measurements of Fixation Disparity

SIGNIFICANCE

Fixation disparity is a small vergence error that does not disrupt fusion. Fixation disparity measures correlate with binocular symptoms. This article covers methodological differences between clinical fixation disparity measurement devices, findings when objective and subjective fixation disparities are compared, and the potential impact of binocular capture on fixation disparity measurements. Fixation disparity is a small vergence error that occurs in nonstrabismic individuals and does not disrupt fusion. This article reviews clinical fixation disparity variables and their clinical diagnostic value. Clinical devices that are used to measure these variables are described, as are studies in which the output from these devices has been compared. Methodological differences between the devices such as the location of the fusional stimulus, the rate at which judgments of dichoptic alignment are made, and the strength of the accommodative stimulus are all considered. In addition, the article covers theories of the neural origins of fixation disparity and control system models incorporating fixation disparity. Studies in which objective fixation disparities (oculomotor portion of fixation disparity assessed with an eye tracker) and subjective fixation disparities (sensory portion of fixation disparity assessed psychophysically with dichoptic Nonius lines) have been compared are also examined, and consideration is given to why some investigators find differences in these measures, whereas other investigators do not. The conclusion thus far is that there are likely complex interactions between vergence adaptation, accommodation, and the location of the fusional stimulus that lead to differences in objective and subjective fixation disparity measures. Finally, capture of the visual direction of monocular stimuli by adjacent fusional stimuli and the implications for fixation disparity measures are considered.

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.

The reference point for monocular visual direction can, sometimes, be one of the eyes rather than the cyclopean eye

We found that the imaginary line passing through two stimuli that points to an eye appears to do so when seen monocularly, which is consistent with Porterfield's axiom but inconsistent with Wells's proposition regarding visual direction. We also found that the imaginary line appears to point to the bridge of the nose when the near stimulus is seen binocularly and the far one is seen monocularly, which is consistent with Wells's proposition but inconsistent with Porterfield's axiom. We argue that these findings themselves do not necessarily vitiate the axiom or the proposition and that one should explore the different experimental conditions and hypothesize about the processes that might be involved.