7.2: <i>Invited Paper:</i> Quantification and Modulation of Stereopsis in Humans
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Binocular vision in general and stereopsis in particular are fundamental to human vision and visual actions. It is widely thought that about 5% of the population have a lazy eye and lack stereo vision, so it is often supposed that most of the population (95%) have good stereo abilities. We show that this is not the case; 68% have good to excellent stereo (the haves) and 32% have moderate to poor stereo (the have‐nots). Why so many people lack good 3‐D stereo vision is unclear but it is likely to be neural and reversible. Interocular suppression and stereopsis are two important binocular functions. To date, it still remains unclear about the relationship between them. Here, we use the binocular phase combination paradigm and a comparable paradigm to provide a normative dataset for perceptual eye dominance and stereo acuity in 142 normal‐sighted human adults and analyze their correlation. We show that our eye dominance and stereopsis are not strongly correlated in the normalsighted subjects. These results thus support the idea that the binocular phase combination and stereopsis may be limited by different factors in normal‐sighted adults. At present there is no good way of reliably measuring stereopsis in the clinic other than the standard book tests designed for children. These are convenient but coarsely quantized in disparity with no measure of variance. This makes it difficult to be able to assess the significance of differences from visit to visit contingent on therapy. We report an iPod app that has been developed from laboratory studies of normal stereopsis, to measure stereo in the clinic that is not limited by these factors. The application enables measurements over the wide disparity range and not just at the finest disparities. In addition, it allows changes in stereopsis of the order of 1.9 to be statistically distinguished. Luminance plays a modulating role in the processes of several visual tasks, which in turn provides significant information for the understanding of visual processing. To study the relationship between luminance and stereopsis, we manipulated the mean luminance seen by both eyes or the interocular difference in mean luminance by using ND filters placed in front of both eyes or just one eye respectively. We found that disparity processing was little affected by a binocular change in luminance, but was greatly affected by a luminance mismatch between the two eyes. To investigate its origin we manipulated two factors, the temporal synchrony between the two eyes and the interocular contrast. Both factors are implicated in the loss of stereo performance when the mean luminance is different between the eyes, suggesting an underlying explanation in terms of temporal low‐pass filtering resulting in the combination of a luminance‐dependent temporal delay and a luminance‐dependent change in contrast gain. These results add to our knowledge of stereopsis and have therapeutic potential in re‐establishing stereopsis in patients with binocular disorders.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».