Abstract

The third dimension in the reproduction of real scenes in three-dimensional displays is commonly subject to scale changes. The geometry of the situation is laid out, permitting the depth rendition of displays to be characterized and subjected to empirical examination. Psychophysical experiments are presented showing, even when geometrical deformations have been factored out, specific deviations from veridicality in observers’ depth reports for stereograms of simple static patterns devoid of secondary cues.

© 2011 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article
OSA Recommended Articles
Three-dimensional display technologies

Jason Geng
Adv. Opt. Photon. 5(4) 456-535 (2013)

Accommodative responses to stereoscopic three-dimensional display

Tetsuri Inoue and Hitoshi Ohzu
Appl. Opt. 36(19) 4509-4515 (1997)

A systematic method for designing depth-fused multi-focal plane three-dimensional displays

Sheng Liu and Hong Hua
Opt. Express 18(11) 11562-11573 (2010)

More Recommended Articles

References

  • View by:
  • Article Order
  • |
  • Year
  • |
  • Author
  • |
  • Publication
  1. R. K. Luneburg, Mathematical Analysis of Binocular Vision (Princeton University, 1947).
  2. M. von Rohr, Die binokularen Instrumente (Springer, 1907).
  3. J. von Kries, Notes in H. von Helmholtz Handbuch der physiologischen Optik, 3rd ed. (Voss, 1910), Vol.  III.
  4. G. A. Fry, “Visual perception of space,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 27, 531–553 (1950).
    [PubMed]
  5. K. N. Ogle, “Precision and validity of stereoscopic depth perception from double images,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 43, 906–913 (1953).
    [Crossref]
  6. W. C. Gogel, “Perceived frontal size as a determiner of perceived binocular depth,” J. Psychol. 50, 119–131 (1960).
    [Crossref]
  7. H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404–412 (1963).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. J. M. Foley, “Depth, size and distance in stereoscopic vision,” Percept. Psychophys. 3, 265–274 (1968).
    [Crossref]
  9. D. Brewster, The Stereoscope: Its History, Theory, and Construction (Murray, 1856).
  10. H. Helmholtz, Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik. Abt. 3 (Voss, 1867).
  11. L. Heine, “Über Orthoskopie,” Albrecht von Graefes Arch. Ophthalmol. 51, 563–572 (1900).
  12. B. J. Rogers and R. Cagenello, “Disparity curvature and the perception of three-dimensional surfaces,” Nature 339, 135–137(1989).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. E. B. Johnston, “Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis,” Vision Res. 31, 1351–1360 (1991).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. I. P. Howard and B. J. Rogers, Seeing in Depth (Porteous, 2002), Vol.  2.
  15. E. Wist, “Eye movements and space perception,” Bibl. Ophthalmol. 82, 348–357 (1972).
    [PubMed]
  16. G. C. De Angelis, B. G. Cumming, and W. T. Newsome, “Cortical area MT and the perception of stereoscopic depth,” Nature 394, 677–680 (1998).
    [Crossref]

1998 (1)

G. C. De Angelis, B. G. Cumming, and W. T. Newsome, “Cortical area MT and the perception of stereoscopic depth,” Nature 394, 677–680 (1998).
[Crossref]

1991 (1)

E. B. Johnston, “Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis,” Vision Res. 31, 1351–1360 (1991).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1989 (1)

B. J. Rogers and R. Cagenello, “Disparity curvature and the perception of three-dimensional surfaces,” Nature 339, 135–137(1989).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1972 (1)

E. Wist, “Eye movements and space perception,” Bibl. Ophthalmol. 82, 348–357 (1972).
[PubMed]

1968 (1)

J. M. Foley, “Depth, size and distance in stereoscopic vision,” Percept. Psychophys. 3, 265–274 (1968).
[Crossref]

1963 (1)

H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404–412 (1963).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1960 (1)

W. C. Gogel, “Perceived frontal size as a determiner of perceived binocular depth,” J. Psychol. 50, 119–131 (1960).
[Crossref]

1953 (1)

1950 (1)

G. A. Fry, “Visual perception of space,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 27, 531–553 (1950).
[PubMed]

1900 (1)

L. Heine, “Über Orthoskopie,” Albrecht von Graefes Arch. Ophthalmol. 51, 563–572 (1900).

Brewster, D.

D. Brewster, The Stereoscope: Its History, Theory, and Construction (Murray, 1856).

Cagenello, R.

B. J. Rogers and R. Cagenello, “Disparity curvature and the perception of three-dimensional surfaces,” Nature 339, 135–137(1989).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Cumming, B. G.

G. C. De Angelis, B. G. Cumming, and W. T. Newsome, “Cortical area MT and the perception of stereoscopic depth,” Nature 394, 677–680 (1998).
[Crossref]

De Angelis, G. C.

G. C. De Angelis, B. G. Cumming, and W. T. Newsome, “Cortical area MT and the perception of stereoscopic depth,” Nature 394, 677–680 (1998).
[Crossref]

Foley, J. M.

J. M. Foley, “Depth, size and distance in stereoscopic vision,” Percept. Psychophys. 3, 265–274 (1968).
[Crossref]

Fry, G. A.

G. A. Fry, “Visual perception of space,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 27, 531–553 (1950).
[PubMed]

Gogel, W. C.

W. C. Gogel, “Perceived frontal size as a determiner of perceived binocular depth,” J. Psychol. 50, 119–131 (1960).
[Crossref]

Heine, L.

L. Heine, “Über Orthoskopie,” Albrecht von Graefes Arch. Ophthalmol. 51, 563–572 (1900).

Helmholtz, H.

H. Helmholtz, Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik. Abt. 3 (Voss, 1867).

Howard, I. P.

I. P. Howard and B. J. Rogers, Seeing in Depth (Porteous, 2002), Vol.  2.

Johnston, E. B.

E. B. Johnston, “Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis,” Vision Res. 31, 1351–1360 (1991).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Luneburg, R. K.

R. K. Luneburg, Mathematical Analysis of Binocular Vision (Princeton University, 1947).

Newsome, W. T.

G. C. De Angelis, B. G. Cumming, and W. T. Newsome, “Cortical area MT and the perception of stereoscopic depth,” Nature 394, 677–680 (1998).
[Crossref]

Ogle, K. N.

Rogers, B. J.

B. J. Rogers and R. Cagenello, “Disparity curvature and the perception of three-dimensional surfaces,” Nature 339, 135–137(1989).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

I. P. Howard and B. J. Rogers, Seeing in Depth (Porteous, 2002), Vol.  2.

von Kries, J.

J. von Kries, Notes in H. von Helmholtz Handbuch der physiologischen Optik, 3rd ed. (Voss, 1910), Vol.  III.

von Rohr, M.

M. von Rohr, Die binokularen Instrumente (Springer, 1907).

Wallach, H.

H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404–412 (1963).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wist, E.

E. Wist, “Eye movements and space perception,” Bibl. Ophthalmol. 82, 348–357 (1972).
[PubMed]

Zuckerman, C.

H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404–412 (1963).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Albrecht von Graefes Arch. Ophthalmol. (1)

L. Heine, “Über Orthoskopie,” Albrecht von Graefes Arch. Ophthalmol. 51, 563–572 (1900).

Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. (1)

G. A. Fry, “Visual perception of space,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 27, 531–553 (1950).
[PubMed]

Am. J. Psychol. (1)

H. Wallach and C. Zuckerman, “The constancy of stereoscopic depth,” Am. J. Psychol. 76, 404–412 (1963).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Bibl. Ophthalmol. (1)

E. Wist, “Eye movements and space perception,” Bibl. Ophthalmol. 82, 348–357 (1972).
[PubMed]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. (1)

J. Psychol. (1)

W. C. Gogel, “Perceived frontal size as a determiner of perceived binocular depth,” J. Psychol. 50, 119–131 (1960).
[Crossref]

Nature (2)

G. C. De Angelis, B. G. Cumming, and W. T. Newsome, “Cortical area MT and the perception of stereoscopic depth,” Nature 394, 677–680 (1998).
[Crossref]

B. J. Rogers and R. Cagenello, “Disparity curvature and the perception of three-dimensional surfaces,” Nature 339, 135–137(1989).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Percept. Psychophys. (1)

J. M. Foley, “Depth, size and distance in stereoscopic vision,” Percept. Psychophys. 3, 265–274 (1968).
[Crossref]

Vision Res. (1)

E. B. Johnston, “Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis,” Vision Res. 31, 1351–1360 (1991).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Other (6)

I. P. Howard and B. J. Rogers, Seeing in Depth (Porteous, 2002), Vol.  2.

D. Brewster, The Stereoscope: Its History, Theory, and Construction (Murray, 1856).

H. Helmholtz, Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik. Abt. 3 (Voss, 1867).

R. K. Luneburg, Mathematical Analysis of Binocular Vision (Princeton University, 1947).

M. von Rohr, Die binokularen Instrumente (Springer, 1907).

J. von Kries, Notes in H. von Helmholtz Handbuch der physiologischen Optik, 3rd ed. (Voss, 1910), Vol.  III.

Cited By

OSA participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (6)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Geometry of imaging with a stereocamera whose optics are a distance a C apart and whose axes are converged to an object plane at a distance z C Two targets are in the midsagittal plane, Q at a distance d y above the horizontal, P in the horizontal plane a distance d z C in front of the object plane, where d y = d z C , small compared with z C . The left and right image planes, here shown noninverted, each contain representations of the two targets with coordinates d θ = d y / z and d φ = ± a C × d z C / 2 × z C 2 along their φ , θ axes, ignoring a single magnification constant. Using the subscript C when referring to the recording situation, the parameter R C characterizes the rendition of the line element d y = d z C and is given by the ratio of the image-plane representations of the binocular separation on the left and right sides ( a C × d z C / z C 2 ) and the spatial interval in the object plane ( d y / z C ) It evaluates to a C / z C and, once fixed in the recording session, remains independent of the magnification with which the right and left images are subsequently displayed on the viewing screen, superimposed with controlled separate exposure to the two eyes.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Schema showing a display screen at a distance z O from the observer and how the differentiated lateral positions of the right and left eye images C R and C L , generated in the manner shown in Fig. 1, represent the virtual third dimensional localization of a target C at a distance d z O . For an observer with interocular separation a O , the separation C L C R in the screen plane is related to distance d z O by t = a O × d z O / ( z O − d z O ) or d z O = t × z O / ( a O − t ) . The depth rendition for this situation R O = a O / z O is relative to that with which the record had been acquired, R C . With respect to the original two target objects separated by equal distances in depth and height, the observer is presented with a visual scene whose depth rendition, i.e., disparity/visual size ratio, is given by R O / R C = a O × z C / a C × z O . In the experiments comparing the perceived depth of C with the apparent separation of two markers shown binocularly on the screen itself, the measures for both are read off as spatial intervals on the screen and hence share physical dimension, though perceptually a comparison is made between intervals in two submodalities with quite different processing.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Plan view of the observations, not to scale. (right) The observer’s task was to set marker C so that the depth angle A C B appears to be 90   deg ⁡ , i.e., as if the view was that of a perfect cube in depth, its corner pointing to the observer. (left) The observer’s task was to set a marker C so that its apparent distance in front of the fixation plane equals the distance separating markers A and B within the fixation plane. The 3D localization of C was achieved by differential target positioning of the right and left eyes’ views of displays on a computer monitor. Experiments were also performed with target C behind the frontal plane containing A and B.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Fig. 4
Fig. 4 Data, in two subjects, for two experiments in which the observer adjusted the disparity of feature C (see Fig. 3) according to two instructions: (a) match the magnitude of the seen depth to the comparison distance marked off on the screen or (b) place C so that A B C forms a right angle in depth. Data are plotted in angular measure, abscissa the visual angle subtended at the eye of the comparison interval, ordinates the disparity, distributed equally between the right and left eyes’ views. Observation distance 90   cm .

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Fig. 5
Fig. 5 Results, for four observers, in an experiment in which the observer set the disparity of point C (see inset) to match its depth to a range of comparison intervals A B in the frontal plane. Distances are linear in object space, converted from angles in the manner shown in Fig. 2. Viewing the simple dot stereograms without secondary clues on a monitor screen at 90   cm , all observers required greater stimulus depth than prescribed by geometry for veridical depth rendition (thin straight line), i.e., they saw the configuration foreshortened in depth.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Fig. 6
Fig. 6 Replication of experiment in Fig. 4 for one observer at three observation distances, all other stimulus conditions, including visual angles and convergence, remaining constant. Results have been normalized for the intermediate distance. The straight line is the expected disparity if the relative depth rendition in the reconstruction were 1.0, i.e., if the observer’s view were veridical. The actual values, 6.0, 6.0, and 4.8, respectively, indicate that considerably more disparity is required in the display for the observer’s report of a match between depth and lateral distances than if the display were geometrically true.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Tables (1)

Tables Icon

Table 1 Disparity Needed for Depth Match of a 30   arc   min ⁡ Frontal-Plane Interval at a Screen Distance of 45   cm with Three Levels of Convergence

View Table

Equations (2)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

φ = x / z , θ = y / z , γ = a / z .
P R ′ ( − a × d z / 2 z 2 , 0 ) and P L ′ ( a × d z / 2 z 2 , 0 ) , Q R ′ ( 0 , d y / z ) and Q L ′ ( 0 , d y / z ) .

Metrics